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 behavioral burden. It fully discloses the two-step validation flow, the need for consent, the confirmation token, the email-link requirement, and the fact that providers see nothing until the person clicks the link.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the most critical caveats and organizes the two steps clearly, making the complex flow digestible without repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers what step 1 returns, what step 2 requires, what happens after submission, and the exact consent wording. This is complete enough for an agent to execute the flow 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant workflow meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and represent specific agreed language, and confirmation is the step-1 token only used after approval.

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 clear verb and resource: submits an enquiry to human providers. The description explicitly distinguishes this from a purchase and a guaranteed quote, and the two-step nature is front-loaded in the title and description.

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?

Provides clear procedural context: when to call step 1, when to call step 2, and the condition that gates step 2. It implies use after collecting answers from enquiry_fields, though it does not explicitly name sibling output as prerequisites or state when not to use the tool.

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