site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and what information is returned. This gives the agent a strong safety and expectations profile without needing annotations.

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 three sentences with no fluff. 'Read first' front-loads the key usage instruction, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct value: what the tool explains, what does not happen, and what specific information is returned.

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, this description is complete. It explains the tool's role, the domain, the non-transactional guarantees, and enumerates the returned content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation mechanism). No output schema exists, but the description provides sufficient detail for correct use.

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 has zero parameters and the description appropriately mentions none. Since the tool requires no input, the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter information that the description would need to add.

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 purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Clinical Waste Quotes. It clearly distinguishes itself from the action tool by saying it 'states plainly' rather than performing the enquiry, and the title reinforces that it is informational, not transactional.

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' explicitly tells the agent to use this before other actions, and the description names submit_enquiry as the subject it explains. It does not mention enquiry_fields as an alternative, but the context is clear enough for an agent to understand this is the preparatory/explainer 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently enumerates the returned data elements and implies a read-only introspection operation, but it does not explicitly state side-effect profile, response wrapping, or error behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and content list; the second sentence gives directly actionable guidance for using the results with a sibling 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?

For a zero-parameter, one-purpose metadata tool, the description covers what is returned and how to use the result. It is nearly complete, though it could have been stronger with an explicit note that this is a read-only metadata lookup or a more direct naming of enquiry_describe as the alternative for higher-level enquiry information.

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 full schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the important semantic that field keys are the linking mechanism for submit_enquiry, which supports correct usage even though there are no params to document.

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 ('Every field of the Clinical Waste Quotes enquiry') and specifies the exact attributes returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly contrast itself with enquiry_describe, though it is recognizably distinct from 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 description provides clear usage context by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, establishing a workflow. It does not explicitly say when to avoid this tool or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the validation pass, the required human-approval gate, the double opt-in email link that must be clicked before any provider sees the data, distribution to up to three firms, and notification of each firm's name. It also spells out what consent actually means, which is the critical behavioral fact for a tool that shares personal contact details.

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 purpose and its negation, then the two steps, which is the right ordering for an agent. The long quoted consent text is somewhat redundant with the identical text in the schema's consent description, costing some length without adding new information.

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?

Complete for a two-phase, consent-gated submission with no output schema: the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what step 2 triggers (submission plus an email with a link that must be clicked), and the downstream visibility rules. An agent has everything needed to drive both calls correctly without an output schema.

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 genuine meaning beyond the schema: it tells the agent that answers are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, that consent=true is a hard requirement at both steps, and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 rather than an arbitrary string.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Clinical Waste Quotes') and immediately clarifies what it is not — 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' — which is exactly the distinction an agent needs. It is clearly separable from the sibling helpers enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which supply the field keys and descriptions this tool consumes.

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 with the exact conditions: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, Step 2 only if the person agrees and with the same answers plus token. It also states the gate ('show the person the summary and the consent line') before proceeding, leaving no inference to the agent.

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