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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses the two-step confirmation flow, the consent text, the email-link requirement before provider visibility, and the non-guarantee nature of the enquiry. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, step 1, step 2, consent definition, and email caveat are all necessary for correct invocation. The 'NOT a purchase' qualifier is front-loaded and the step structure makes it 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 three-parameter tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description provides the missing context: expected return of step 1, required confirmation token in step 2, consent semantics, and the downstream email activation. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is omitted.

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; the description adds value by explaining how the confirmation token is obtained in step 1 and reused in step 2, and by clarifying that answers are keyed by enquiry_fields. It strengthens understanding of the confirmation parameter beyond its schema description.

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: submits an enquiry to CIW Registration, and explicitly disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step workflow is announced up front, making the tool's role distinct from the sibling tools 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?

The description gives explicit operational ordering (step 1 validation then step 2 submission) and tells the agent to proceed only if the person agrees. It does not explicitly route between this tool and its sibling tools, but the 'NOT a purchase' exclusion and step conditions make the use case clear.

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