site

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility and does so well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, paid, or guaranteed, and that the service is free. It also discloses what information will be returned, including recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method.

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?

Three sentences deliver the essential information with no filler: a usage command, the tool's purpose, the safety/expectation context, and the return contents. The most important framing, 'Read first', is front-loaded.

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, the description provides enough context for an agent to know why it exists, what it covers, and what it will produce. It also addresses the key concerns an agent would have before submitting an enquiry, making it complete.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about arguments or inputs. The baseline for a parameterless tool is appropriate, and the description uses the space to clarify behavior instead.

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 that enquiry_describe explains what submit_enquiry does, grounding it to the specific 'Commercial EPC Cost' context. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the read-first informational tool rather than the action 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 opening 'Read first' gives explicit sequencing guidance, implying the agent should call this before submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions regarding enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full 5-level 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the contents of the result (field metadata), which is the key behavioral aspect for an enquiry-fields tool. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or describe the exact response shape, but the described content strongly implies a safe metadata lookup.

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 well-structured: the first sentence enumerates the returned field attributes, and the second sentence gives a concrete usage direction connected to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 fully explains what will be returned and how the results should be used. It tells the agent the field key is the link to submit_enquiry, which is exactly the contextual information needed to invoke the tool effectively.

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 parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed since there is nothing to pass in.

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 (the Commercial EPC Cost enquiry) and the content of the result (each field's key, label, type, requiredness, help text, and allowed options). However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return', and it does not directly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, though the field-level detail makes the intent mostly clear.

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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies this tool should be used to discover the fields needed to submit an enquiry, which is useful contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe, and no exclusion or alternative is mentioned.

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, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, and critically that the recipient must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data. It does not cover failure modes, token expiry, or error handling, which leaves a gap for a mutation-style two-phase flow.

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-loads the critical distinction (not a purchase) and sequences the two steps clearly. However, the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim a second time even though it is already the schema description for 'consent', which is redundant text.

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 three-parameter, annotation-free, no-output-schema tool with a mandatory two-phase confirmation, the description supplies everything needed: sequencing, token handling, consent semantics, and the downstream verification-email consequence.

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 field key from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token supplied only after approval, contextualizing how each parameter participates in the workflow.

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+resource (submits an enquiry) and immediately disambiguates from what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which is the key risk given the name 'submit_enquiry'. It also positions the tool against the enquiry_fields sibling by naming the field-key source.

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 conditions: step 1 with answers and consent=true returns a summary/token to show the person; step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token. Alternatives and preconditions are spelled out rather than inferred.

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