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?

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it reveals the two-call sequence, validation/summary/token returns, consent requirement, email link, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 longer than average, but it is front-loaded with the key discriminator ('NOT a purchase') and structured into Step 1/Step 2. Every clause adds necessary operational detail; the main redundancy is restating the consent quote already present in the schema, preventing a perfect score.

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 complex two-step mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies required inputs for each call, what step 1 returns, the consent gate, and the final email/click side effect. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly in both steps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, explaining the confirmation token's temporal role between step 1 and step 2, and clarifying that consent means agreement to the exact quoted 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 names a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Cataract Surgery Cost') and immediately disambiguates it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also lays out the two-step nature, which separates it from the sibling helper tools enquiry_describe and 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 description gives explicit step-by-step when-to-call guidance: step 1 with consent=true, then step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It includes a when-not (not a purchase/quote), though it doesn't name alternatives such as enquiry_describe, so it stops just short of a full 5.

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