site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly succeeds: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the tool is free. It also discloses what the tool returns, making its side-effect-free nature reasonably 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?

The description is short and front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, and each sentence adds meaningful context about purpose, behavior, or output. There is minor redundancy with the title about not being a purchase or guaranteed quote, but it reinforces an important caveat.

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 parameterless, read-only explainer tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it does not guarantee, and what it returns: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it and 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; per the rubric this gets a solid baseline. The description instead explains the tool's output, which is the only semantic information an agent needs here.

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 states that this tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and lists the returned content, so the tool's role as a read-first explainer is evident. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being descriptive rather than action-oriented, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 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?

'Read first' is an explicit cue that this tool should be called before submit_enquiry, framing it as the safe entry point. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_fields, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral-burden. It discloses what the tool returns but does not explicitly state that it is read-only or side-effect-free. The zero-parameter, metadata-only nature strongly implies safety, but the description leaves it unstated.

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 concise sentences deliver the resource, the exact content of the result, and the downstream usage. Every word earns its place, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and how to use it. The only gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling enquiry_describe, which could cause an agent to pick the wrong tool without further investigation.

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 no parameters and an empty schema with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining how returned field keys are used in submit_enquiry, which is more helpful than parameter documentation would be here.

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 exactly what the tool does: it lists every field of the Cataract Surgery Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, requiredness, help text, and allowed options. It clearly distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by positioning itself as the metadata source for that 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 implies the usage context by saying 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', which tells the agent to fetch fields before submitting. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling enquiry_describe, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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?

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels. It reveals key behavioral aspects not in the schema, such as the definition of 'consent' terms, the resulting email process, and the necessity of a confirmation token linking the two steps.

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?

While the description is long, its length is entirely justified by the complexity of the business process. The information is highly structured using 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' to maintain readability and flow.

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?

It is highly complete for a complex, multi-stage tool. It covers the initiation of the request, the required user consent/action, the token mechanism for follow-up, and the legal disclaimers.

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 description adds crucial semantic value to every parameter. It explains that 'answers' must be keyed by 'enquiry_fields,' defines 'confirmation' as the 'token from step 1,' and provides the full legal text for the 'consent' parameter.

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 purpose is immediately clear: to submit an enquiry. It explicitly warns the user that it is not a purchase or a guaranteed quote, distinguishing its function from transactional tools.

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 functions as an operational manual, detailing a strict two-step workflow (Step 1 and Step 2). This explicit guidance on sequence and conditions (getting the token) is the highest level of usage clarity possible.

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