site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the no-purchase/no-payment/no-guaranteed-quote nature, states it is free, and explains what the tool returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and stays compact, but there is some redundancy between the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' and the description's repeated negations. Still, 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?

For a 0-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the domain, the relationship to submit_enquiry, the safety/financial implications, and the specific return content. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and know what to expect.

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, so there is nothing to document beyond the empty schema. The rubric's baseline of 4 for 0-param tools applies; no further parameter explanation is needed.

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 resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Care Inspectorate Registration'), making the tool's documentation role obvious. It also disambiguates the tool from submit_enquiry itself by clarifying nothing is purchased, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed.

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' is an explicit directive to use this tool before the action it describes, giving clear context for when it should be invoked. It does not explicitly contrast it with enquiry_fields or state when not to use it, which keeps it from a 5.

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, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does so by spelling out the output contents of the tool: every field's key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also reveals the downstream behavior of associating field keys with submit_enquiry answers. It does not explicitly label the operation as read-only, but the content makes that clear.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first front-loads a complete field inventory, and the second provides the connection to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place.

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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it defines the field structure and the intended consumer. The only gap is that it does not disambiguate from enquiry_describe, so the agent must infer the boundary between those siblings.

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 accepts zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant semantic context by mentioning that answers are submitted keyed by field key, even though no parameter details are needed.

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 the resource — every field of the Care Inspectorate Registration enquiry — and enumerates exactly what each field contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry but not from the sibling enquiry_describe.

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 second sentence gives direct, actionable usage guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, making the intended workflow explicit. It does not state when not to use it or mention the enquiry_describe alternative, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission requires a second call, that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and that details go to up to three consultants who can be stopped. It does not cover failure behavior (invalid token, validation errors) or retry/idempotency, which matters for a token-gated two-step write.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the negative framing, then walks the two steps in order. It is dense but every clause is operational; the only waste is re-quoting the full consent sentence verbatim when the 'consent' parameter description in the schema already carries the identical text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token; step 2 triggers an email with a click-through link before providers see anything. Combined with the full two-step protocol, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds flow-level meaning the schema cannot: that 'answers' are keyed by the field key obtained from enquiry_fields, and that 'confirmation' is only supplied on the second call after the person approves the summary. This clarifies when each parameter is populated, which the flat schema does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Care Inspectorate Registration') and immediately delimits it against what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lookup tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which the description implicitly routes around by naming enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, then Step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The condition selecting each call and the ordering constraint are stated outright, leaving nothing to inference.

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