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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the two-step calling convention, the validation and return of a summary/consent line/confirmation token, the condition that the person must agree, the email with a required link, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked.

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 element earns its place because the tool's two-step flow requires explanation. It is front-loaded with the most critical framing (not a purchase, not a quote) and then walks through the steps in order. A is only lost for the dense single-paragraph structure, which could have been formatted as clear sequential steps.

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?

The description covers the full invocation cycle: input requirements, validation behavior, the intermediate return values, the confirmation requirement, the eventual submission, and the email/link behavior. Given that there is no output schema, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to execute the 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?

Although the schema already documents each parameter, the description adds significant procedural meaning beyond the schema. It explains that the same answers must be used in both steps, that confirmation is the token returned from step 1, and precisely what consent means by quoting the consent text.

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 states a specific verb ('submits'), a specific resource ('enquiry to Care Inspectorate Registration'), and clearly distinguishes it from a purchase or quote. It also differentiates from siblings like enquiry_describe (a read operation) and enquiry_fields (metadata retrieval) by emphasizing this is a submission flow.

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 explicit procedural context: when to call the tool (step 1 and step 2), when to call again (only after person approves), and what the consent condition is. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools as alternatives, but it clearly frames when this tool is appropriate versus a purchase or a quote.

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