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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It covers validation, return of a summary/consent line/confirmation token, second-step submission, email delivery, and the critical fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the emailed link.

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, with clear Step 1 and Step 2 structure. The critical caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded, and the consent wording is included exactly as needed.

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-based submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains prerequisites, sequence, return values for step 1, user consent requirements, and post-submission behavior. No critical operational detail 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%, but the description adds substantial meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true with the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token from step 1 used only on the second call. This temporal and source-based context goes well beyond the 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Cold Room Installation Cost') and explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also differentiates the two-step submission process from sibling tools like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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 step-by-step usage instructions: call first with answers and consent, then call again with the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer sibling tools, but references enquiry_fields for keying answers, providing enough context for correct use.

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