site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it states that the underlying action starts an enquiry, is free, creates no purchase/order/payment, guarantees no quote, and returns the recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives an agent a precise side-effect and safety profile.

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 main message, and contains no filler sentences. The opening 'Read first' and the verbose title are somewhat redundant, but the body is efficient and scannable.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what action it describes, the non-financial implications, and the return content. An agent has enough context to know when and why to call this tool.

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 is empty and there are no required or optional parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the tool takes no inputs.

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 CIW Registration, including side effects and return content. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_fields, and the title is more user-facing messaging than a tool-purpose statement.

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 an explicit signal to consult this tool before acting, and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' provides clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like enquiry_fields or explain when to avoid this tool, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a metadata/inspection operation and describes the output, but it does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or has no side effects. This is adequate for a zero-parameter field-listing tool 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?

The description is two dense, purposeful sentences with no wasted words. The core output description is front-loaded, and the integration hint follows immediately.

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 output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned attributes and the intended downstream use. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape or read-only nature, but for a simple zero-parameter metadata tool it is substantially complete.

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 is no missing parameter documentation. The description adds useful context about how the returned field keys relate to submit_enquiry, which goes beyond the empty 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 clearly states that the tool exposes every field of the CIW Registration enquiry and enumerates the returned attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers are submitted using the field keys this tool provides.

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 actionable guidance: fetch the fields first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling enquiry_describe or state when this tool should be avoided.

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, and it does disclose a lot: validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, and the requirement that the person click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. However, it does not state error/failure behavior (what happens if answers are invalid or consent=false), rate limits, or what the step-1 response looks like in machine terms beyond 'a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token.'

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?

It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (not a purchase) and the step structure is easy to follow. It is on the long side, and the full consent sentence appears both in the description and verbatim in the schema's consent property, which is mild redundancy, but the text is otherwise dense with load-bearing detail.

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 nested, multi-step, human-in-the-loop tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: input source (enquiry_fields keys), the two-call protocol, the token handoff, downstream email confirmation, and the consent meaning. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly across both steps 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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description does add cross-tool meaning by tying 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields and by framing the 'confirmation' token as coming specifically from step 1 after approval, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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+resource (submit an enquiry to CIW Registration) and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' which separates it from what an agent might otherwise assume. It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so it is distinguishable from its siblings 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?

Explicitly lays out a two-step invocation protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, Step 2 only after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It states the gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and what the agent must do between steps (show the summary and consent line), 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.