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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry only reaches providers after an email-link click, and the exact downstream distribution rule (up to three hospitals, emailed per firm, stoppable). These are material side effects an agent cannot infer from the schema alone.

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 not-a-purchase caveat, then ordered Step 1/Step 2 so the sequence is easy to follow. It is dense and the consent text is reproduced nearly verbatim on top of the schema's copy, which is some redundancy, but the wording is legally load-bearing rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a click-through link gating provider visibility). For a nested-object, non-trivial flow, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is only supplied on the second call. That last point in particular is behavior the schema's terse 'after the person has approved the summary' barely conveys.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry'), names the target service ('Cataract Surgery Cost'), and explicitly negates likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) are read-only metadata helpers, and the description's transactional framing clearly separates this write-path tool from them.

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-call protocol: Step 1 with answers+consent=true, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token added. It also names the gating precondition (person must agree, must click the email link) and points at enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so there is no ambiguity about when to call or call again.

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