site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it well. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the enquiry is free, and that the tool returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives a clear and honest picture of the tool's behavior and consequences.

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, front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Read first'), and every sentence adds substantive value. It avoids filler while covering the core behavioral guarantees and return content.

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, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the context in which it should be read, the key caveats (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote), and what information the returned description will contain.

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, so there is nothing to document beyond the empty schema. The description appropriately focuses on the output content instead, which is the relevant semantic information for this informational tool.

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 describes what submit_enquiry does for CCTV Installation Cost, including that it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. It also lists what the description returns, so an agent can confidently distinguish this informational tool from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry.

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' gives an explicit cue that this tool should be consulted before acting, and the description clarifies that it explains submit_enquiry. It doesn't explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to know when to call this tool.

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 full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool exposes and even notes that allowed options are included 'where there are any.' It does not mention response format or side effects, but for a zero-parameter read-only metadata query, this is largely sufficient.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what data the agent will receive, and the second provides a concrete workflow connection. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: which enquiry, what fields are returned, and how to use the keys downstream. An explicit statement of the response format would make it fully complete, but the current text is adequate for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The description adds value beyond that by explaining the meaning of field keys and how they should be used when calling submit_enquiry. There are no parameter details needed beyond this.

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 identifies the resource ('CCTV Installation Cost enquiry') and enumerates the exact data returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. The lack of an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return' is minor because 'Every field of...' unambiguously conveys the operation. It also partially distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing how to use its output, though it does not differentiate from enquiry_describe.

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 usage by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which suggests enquiry_fields is the prerequisite for submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or when not to use it. The guidance is present but only implied, not explicit.

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 full burden and does so: it discloses the validation pass, what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an emailed link, and the exact consent scope (up to three firms, per-firm notification, opt-out). This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then walks the two steps in order. The long verbatim consent quote is justified because it is the exact wording the person must agree to, though it makes the entry longer than strictly needed.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover returns and side effects — and it does, explaining the Step 1 return payload, the confirmation token round-trip, the email verification requirement, and the provider-visibility gate. An agent has everything needed to drive both steps 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers are keyed by field key from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, consent must be true and is tied to the quoted consent text, and confirmation is specifically the token returned by Step 1 after the person approves the summary.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to CCTV Installation Cost') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' which separates it from any transaction tool. The 'submit' action is also plainly distinct from the read-oriented siblings 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers+consent=true to validate, Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. When to call each variant and the gating condition are spelled out, 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.