site

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, the service is free, and it returns recipient details, consent wording, and the confirmation method. It omits any note on auth/privacy handling, but for a read-only informational tool this is strong disclosure.

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 'Read first.' and then a compact list of guarantees and return contents. Slightly dense and the opening fragment is terse, but every clause earns its place with no 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the purpose, the non-commitment guarantees, and enumerates what is returned. It could be fuller on how it relates to enquiry_fields, but nothing critical for calling it 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?

The tool takes zero parameters (empty schema), so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 makes the resource and intent clear: it explains what the enquiry process is ('starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly') and explicitly rules out confusion with a purchase or quote. The framing is meta ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does'), which slightly muddies whether it describes itself or its sibling, but an agent can still grasp that this is an informational/describe 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?

'Read first.' gives a clear sequencing hint (call this before submit_enquiry), so usage is implied. However, it never names the alternatives (enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry) or states when to skip this tool, leaving the agent to infer how it relates to its siblings.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well by spelling out the returned field attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It omits any statement about ordering, count, or caching, but for a zero-parameter, side-effect-free metadata lookup the important behavior is covered.

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, front-loaded with the resource and then the payload contents, followed by the downstream usage note. Every enumerated attribute earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description supplies precisely the missing piece: the shape of the return value and how its keys feed the sibling submit_enquiry. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 (empty schema, 100% coverage), which is the baseline-4 case. The description's only parameter-like content concerns the downstream submit_enquiry payload keyed by 'field key', which is useful but outside this tool's schema.

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 the concrete resource (every field of the Cheap small business web design enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It clearly separates itself from submit_enquiry, but gives no signal distinguishing it from the sibling enquiry_describe, so an agent still has to guess between those two.

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 closing sentence establishes a clear workflow: fetch this first, then 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' That tells the agent when the tool is useful without any explicit exclusions or a stated rule for choosing between this and enquiry_describe.

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 well: it discloses the two-pass validation, what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the requirement to show the person the summary, the double opt-in email link that must be clicked before any provider sees it, and the literal consent wording. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a mutating, consent-gated tool.

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 two-step flow and the 'not a purchase' framing before details. It is dense — largely one long sentence with embedded clauses — and the full quoted consent line adds length, but each element (token handling, email double opt-in) earns its place for such a compliance-sensitive tool.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description still conveys the full lifecycle: validation pass, returned summary/token, conditional second call, and recipient email confirmation before provider visibility. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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: it explains that 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that 'consent' gates Step 1 and means specific agreed wording, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned from Step 1 and passed back only after approval. That is usage semantics beyond the schema 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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (an enquiry to providers), and explicitly negates the likely misreadings: NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. The title reinforces the two-step nature. An agent can distinguish this from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields without opening any 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 explicit when-to-call sequencing: Step 1 with answers and consent=true to validate, Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also ties the answers to the enquiry_fields sibling (keyed by field key), so the agent knows the prerequisite tool.

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