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: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the tool is free. It also discloses what information the tool returns, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and output.

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 concise and front-loaded with the critical instruction 'Read first.' Every sentence adds useful information, and it avoids repeating schema or annotation content.

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 simple, parameterless, informational tool, the description is complete: it explains the tool's purpose, when to use it, what behavioral guarantees apply, and what the return content covers. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 tool as the explainer for submit_enquiry, stating its exact function: it describes what happens with an enquiry. It also distinguishes itself from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry by emphasizing that nothing is purchased or guaranteed.

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 when to use this tool: before acting on submit_enquiry. It also names submit_enquiry as the action tool, making the alternative clear, and implicitly positions enquiry_describe as the non-action, informational choice.

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 the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the output contents and notes that options are provided where applicable, which is helpful. It does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only metadata lookup, nor describe the response shape or lack of side effects, leaving some behavioral details 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 one dense, front-loaded sentence: it names the resource, enumerates the returned attributes, and closes with an actionable usage note. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 metadata lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what content will be returned and how that content should be used with submit_enquiry. It is slightly incomplete because it does not address the sibling enquiry_describe or state the exact output format, but it is otherwise sufficient 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?

The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description's note about passing answers keyed by field key adds practical context about how the returned keys are used, which is a small bonus.

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 identifies the exact resource ('Commercial Laundry Cost enquiry') and specifies the returned data: key, label, type, whether required, help text, and allowed options. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not distinguish itself from sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 to 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies that this tool should be used to obtain the field keys needed for submission. It never explicitly states when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe, nor gives any exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is only implied.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It thoroughly covers the two-step nature, the requirement for consent, the consent wording, the confirmation token flow, and the fact that the enquiry is only visible to providers after the person clicks the emailed link. This is unusually complete behavioral 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?

The description is longer than typical but every element earns its place: the non-purchase caveat, step-by-step flow, consent line, confirmation token, and email-link gating. It is front-loaded with the core action and organized with clear Step 1/Step 2 structure, so the density is justified.

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 involves a multi-step workflow with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description fully equips the agent: it explains what step 1 returns, what the agent must show the person, when to call again, and what happens after submission. Given the complexity, nothing essential 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?

The input schema already describes all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true and match the exact consent wording, and confirmation is the step-1 token reused in step 2. This goes beyond the schema by explaining how the parameters fit into the two-step lifecycle.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry to Commercial Laundry Cost') and clearly distinguishes it from a purchase or quote. The title and two-step framing give the agent a clear understanding of what the tool achieves and differentiate it from the sibling tools that describe or provide enquiry 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 description gives explicit two-step usage instructions: first validate with answers and consent, then submit only after the person agrees and returns the confirmation token. It also clearly states what the tool is not for ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide a comparative routing rule.

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