site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and outcomes.

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 compact, front-loaded with the actionable 'Read first' directive, and each sentence adds distinct information: what the tool explains, what it does not do, and what it returns. The phrasing is direct and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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, no-annotation tool, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the domain context, the non-financial nature, the free aspect, and the specific return content. An agent has enough information to decide when to call this tool and what to expect from it.

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 the baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The description instead focuses on what the tool communicates, which is appropriate for a parameterless informational tool. No parameter semantics are missing.

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 clear, specific purpose: it is a read-first tool that explains what submit_enquiry does, framed as starting an enquiry with human providers. It distinguishes the tool from the actual action tool by emphasizing that nothing is purchased, ordered, or guaranteed. The title reinforces this with the 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' contrast.

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 phrase 'Read first' gives explicit guidance to consult this tool before proceeding, which is strong usage direction. It clarifies that this tool explains submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over enquiry_fields or when it can be skipped. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the returned field attributes: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This makes the tool's output behavior predictable without needing to infer much, though it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the specific output components. The additional instruction about submit_enquiry is relevant and earns its place without adding verbosity.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the shape of the returned data and explains how to use those data with submit_enquiry. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call and process the result 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 zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, and the empty input schema confirms no arguments are required. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 tool's subject—every field of the Classic Car Restoration Cost enquiry—and lists what information each field includes. It does not use a strong imperative verb like 'lists' or 'returns,' and it does not explicitly differentiate from enquiry_describe, but the content makes the purpose evident.

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 provides actionable guidance by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the tool is used to discover valid keys before submission, though it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or give exclusions.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step nature, the validation and return of a summary/consent line/token, the email-link requirement, and that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also defines what consent means in exact terms, revealing side effects beyond a simple 'submit'.

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 front-loaded with the key caveat 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', then lays out the two steps in a clear, logical order. Every sentence adds operational value—consent text, token flow, email link—without redundancy or 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 two-step, consent-gated submission with no output schema, the description fully covers the workflow: prerequisites (answers from enquiry_fields), the confirmation token handoff, the consent requirement, and the post-submission email-link behavior. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds significant meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact consent line, and the confirmation token is explained as the output of Step 1 that must be resubmitted in Step 2. This goes well beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 ('Submits an enquiry') and resource ('Classic Car Restoration Cost'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also differentiates itself from the sibling tools by framing the two-step submission process, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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?

Usage is explicitly stepwise: Step 1 with answers and consent=true returns a summary and token; Step 2 is called only after person agrees, with the same answers, consent, and token. The condition for the second call is explicit, and the description notes that a person must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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