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 substantial work: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns who receives details, the consent wording, and confirmation method. It could be even more explicit about having no side effects, but the explanatory framing makes that reasonably clear.

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 'Read first' and the core purpose, then adds only high-value clarifications in compact sentences. Every sentence earns its place and there is no meaningful redundancy.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the tool's role, what it returns, and the important user-facing caveats. The sibling relationship is handled by naming submit_enquiry and using 'Read first' to signal the correct ordering.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. No parameter-specific explanation is needed because there are no parameters to explain.

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 explicitly names the verb 'States plainly' and the resource 'submit_enquiry on Commercial Drainage Quotes', so an agent can tell this is an explanatory tool rather than the submission action itself. It also differentiates from the sibling submit_enquiry by framing itself as the 'Read first' companion.

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 leading 'Read first' is clear usage guidance: consult this tool before submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly address enquiry_fields as an alternative, but for a zero-parameter informational tool the placement and content give sufficient context.

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 behavioral transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (field metadata including keys, labels, types, requiredness, help text, and options) and implies a read-only metadata lookup. But it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral context unstated.

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 sentences with no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core content of the response, and the second sentence provides actionable, relevant guidance linking to submit_enquiry. Every part earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what fields the enquiry includes and how to use those field keys. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with enquiry_describe, but the agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and use its output.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate; the description adds no parameter semantics because none 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 resource ('Every field of the Commercial Drainage Quotes enquiry') and enumerates the returned content: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool enquiry_describe, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 an indirect usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how the output should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token, that step 2 actually submits, that consent triggers a double opt-in email link the person must click before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three contractors who contact the person directly with per-firm notification and opt-out. This is rich, non-obvious operational and privacy behavior.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core distinction and then the two steps, so an agent can act without reading to the end. The fully quoted consent text is lengthy and largely duplicates the schema's consent description, which is the main source of redundancy, but it is not padding.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by explaining what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after step 2 (submission plus a verification email). Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, including the required confirmation-token handoff between the two calls.

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 real semantics: 'answers' must be keyed by the field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only when the person agreed, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token used only in step 2 after approval. This sequencing meaning is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 Commercial Drainage Quotes') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which distinguishes it from any purchase/quote sibling. It also frames the tool as a two-step flow, so an agent knows exactly what invoking it 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?

It gives explicit conditional guidance for each step: call step 1 with answers and consent=true, then only call step 2 'only if the person agrees', passing the token. It references the field key source (enquiry_fields) implicitly and rejects the purchase interpretation. It stops short of naming the sibling tools enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe as the mandatory prerequisites, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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