site

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the tool's output content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method) and clearly states the non-transactional nature of the enquiry. It does not explicitly claim read-only, but 'Read first' and 'returns' strongly imply an informational, side-effect-free tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description opens with a direct instruction, front-loads the purpose, and adds only relevant facts about the enquiry flow and return content. It is compact and every sentence contributes useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description appropriately explains both what the tool communicates and what it returns. For a simple 0-parameter describe tool, nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and names the exact object ('what submit_enquiry does'), so an agent knows this is an explanatory read tool rather than the action itself. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by clarifying that no purchase or payment occurs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Read first' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before submitting an enquiry, giving clear placement in the workflow. It provides deciding context—free, no commitment, no guaranteed quote—and names submit_enquiry as the related action, though it does not directly contrast with enquiry_fields.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reasonably discloses what the tool provides and implies it is a read-only metadata lookup by directing actual submission to submit_enquiry. It could explicitly state that no data is submitted, but the description is not misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the exact data elements included. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant or vague wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies the necessary context: what the field list contains, how to use it, and how it connects to submission. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so parameter documentation is not needed. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter ambiguity exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies what the tool exposes: every field of the Caravan Storage Prices enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' but the meaning is unambiguous and the relationship to submit_enquiry helps separate it from the submission tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives actionable usage guidance: obtain the field definitions, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This clarifies the intended workflow and distinguishes it from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it reveals the two-step deferral, that the first call does not submit, that the person receives an email and must click a link before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent condition.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every clause is necessary for a two-step workflow with a legal consent condition. It is front-loaded with the core action and exclusions, then clearly organizes Step 1 and Step 2.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with nested answers, a confirmation token, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent must do in each call, what to show the person, and what happens after submission. The only external reference it needs—enquiry_fields—is named and is also a sibling tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Even though the schema already describes all three parameters, the description adds workflow meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent=true is the literal agreement to the quoted line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 that must accompany the second call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Caravan Storage Prices') and immediately distinguishes the tool from related concepts: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The title's 'two steps; not a purchase' plus the body make it clear this is the submission tool and not enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The workflow is explicit: Step 1 validates and returns a summary/confirmation token, and Step 2 is permitted only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers and token. It also states when not to use it (not a purchase or guaranteed quote) and points to enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.