site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds. It discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the service is free. It also states exactly what the tool returns: recipient 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 concise and front-loaded with 'Read first,' which immediately directs the agent. There is slight redundancy with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' vs. 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), but the extra clarity about cost and return content justifies the length.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool is for, what it does not do, what it returns, and how to use it relative to submit_enquiry. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the result.

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 and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not clutter itself with irrelevant parameter details.

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 the tool's purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on the CCTV Drain Survey Cost flow, distinguishing an enquiry from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also names the content returned, so an agent understands this is an informational/descriptive tool, not the action tool itself. The title reinforces this by framing the output as 'What you get.'

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 opening 'Read first' strongly implies this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry, giving clear contextual placement among siblings. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_fields, but the purpose is evident enough that an agent would know to call this before taking an action.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates this is a metadata retrieval operation and enumerates the returned content, but it does not explicitly state that calling it has no side effects or describe the response structure. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 core meaning is front-loaded, and the cross-reference to submit_enquiry is compact and actionable.

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 lookup with no output schema, the description tells an agent exactly what information is returned and how to use it. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the baseline for tools with no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it lists every field of the CCTV Drain Survey Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that its field keys are used to key the answers for submission.

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 clear practical guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool should be used first to discover the fields. It does not explicitly mention enquiry_describe or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear enough.

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 the full burden and does so: it discloses the validation step, the returned summary/consent line/token, the two-phase submission, and the downstream email-verification gate before providers see the data. It also spells out the exact consent semantics, which is the key behavioral constraint.

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-loads the identity and the 'not a purchase' caveat, then walks the two steps in order. The embedded verbatim consent text is lengthy but is load-bearing, since it defines the semantic requirement for consent=true; overall efficient though dense.

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 two-phase mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: inputs, intermediate returns, the token handoff, the final submission, and the post-submission email confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that 'consent' must be true, and that 'confirmation' is the token from step 1 used only after approval. It clarifies step-dependent usage of the optional parameter beyond the schema's terse definitions.

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 (submits) and resource (enquiry to human providers), and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening a schema.

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 to validate and obtain a token, Step 2 only after the person agrees. It names the prerequisite (field keys from enquiry_fields) and the condition gating each call, 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.