site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that no purchase, order, or payment occurs, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns specific consent and confirmation details. While it doesn't explicitly state that the tool itself performs no side effects, the 'Read first' framing and the focus on describing submit_enquiry imply a non-mutating informational tool.

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 core message efficiently, with 'Read first' front-loaded as an immediate instruction. There is minor redundancy with the title (which already says 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), but the description remains tight and purposeful.

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 enough: it states what the tool does, what it returns, and the non-committal nature of the enquiry. It doesn't describe an output structure, but that is unnecessary for a descriptive tool. It could mention the sibling enquiry_fields more explicitly, but that is not a significant gap.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and no parameter-related gap exists.

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 this tool's role: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns the consent wording, recipient details, and confirmation flow. It is explicitly differentiated from submit_enquiry, which performs the actual submission, and from enquiry_fields by focusing on explaining the enquiry process rather than collecting 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?

The opening 'Read first' gives a clear contextual signal that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_fields, but the 'Read first' instruction and the description's focus on explanation provide adequate usage 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 burden. It discloses what the tool exposes and, by directing submission to submit_enquiry, indicates this tool is a metadata lookup rather than the submission action itself. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior or response container format, but for a no-parameter field retrieval tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and required detail fields, the second gives the integration instruction. The most important information is front-loaded and every word 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 no-input tool without an output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned and how to use it for submission. The main gap is the unaddressed sibling enquiry_describe, which leaves some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other, but the definition is otherwise sufficient.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document and the zero-parameter baseline applies. The description adds related value by noting that answers should be keyed by the field keys, which clarifies how the tool's output will be consumed by submit_enquiry.

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 names the specific resource ('Commercial Heat Pump Cost enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not contrast with the sibling enquiry_describe, but the content makes the tool's role 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?

It provides a direct usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how to connect this tool's output to the submission flow. However, it does not discuss when to prefer this 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 validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email with a click-through link, and that no provider sees the enquiry until that link is clicked. The consent scope (up to three named firms) is quoted verbatim.

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 core purpose and the purchase disclaimer, then the steps in order. Dense and mostly earning its length, though the full consent text is repeated verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is mild 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email click-through before providers see it), covering a nested-object, two-phase tool adequately.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining that answers are keyed by field keys sourced from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is only supplied on the second call after approval. It adds sequencing semantics the schema alone cannot express.

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 Commercial Heat Pump Cost') and immediately bounds it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can distinguish it from the helper tools.

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: step 1 with answers + consent=true returns a summary and token to show the person; step 2 only 'if the person agrees', resubmitting with the confirmation token. The conditional gate is spelled out rather than implied.

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