site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by stating 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses the returned content: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It could be slightly more explicit that this tool itself does not submit an enquiry.

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 and front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first.' It is slightly repetitive with the title and could tighten phrasing, but every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what the tool does, what it does not do, key caveats, and what information will be returned.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on behavior and return content rather than inventing parameter documentation that is unnecessary.

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 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and explains the outcome of starting an enquiry with human providers. It also differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by being the descriptive pre-read rather than the action itself, and from a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 consume this before acting, and the description ties it to submit_enquiry. However, it does not mention enquiry_fields or explain when to prefer this over that sibling, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states what the tool returns and that the output contains field metadata, but it does not explicitly note that the tool is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or how the fields are structured in the response. For a simple field-listing tool this is adequate 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 a single sentence that immediately states the resource and enumerates the exact contents without filler. It also includes the important connection to submit_enquiry without adding unnecessary 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 no-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what fields are returned and how to use them. It does not explicitly describe the response container or mention the sibling enquiry_describe, but it is still sufficiently complete for correct invocation and 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or compensate for, and the description contains no parameter-related ambiguity.

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 precisely identifies the resource: 'Every field of the Cold Room Installation Cost enquiry' and lists exactly what information is exposed (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It also differentiates the tool from the sibling submit_enquiry by explaining that returned keys are meant to key answers to that 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?

The description provides a clear downstream usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how the field keys should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe or provide any exclusion criteria.

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 burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 is the actual submission, that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and it quotes the full consent text. This is rich, specific behavioral context that an agent cannot infer from 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 two-step flow is front-loaded and logically ordered, with the consent text block clearly separated. It is longer than average but every clause carries operative information; the quoted consent text is necessary because it is the literal agreement the person must accept.

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?

The tool is a stateful, multi-step, consent-gated submission with no annotations and no output schema. The description supplies the missing state machine, the consent semantics, the email-verification gate, and the validation-only nature of step 1, leaving no critical gap for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping 'answers' to keys from the sibling enquiry_fields and by clarifying that 'consent' must be true and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and only used in step 2. It does not add syntax details, keeping it a 4.

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 Cold Room Installation Cost') and explicitly negates the two most plausible misfires: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes it from any sibling that merely describes or lists 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?

Spells out the exact two-step flow: step 1 with answers and consent=true to get a token, step 2 only after the person agrees. It names the precondition (the person must approve the summary) and the alternative is implicit in the two-step gating, 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.