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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that the token must be replayed, that submission triggers a double opt-in email link, and that no provider sees the data until that link is clicked. The consent scope is spelled out verbatim, so the agent knows exactly what it is asserting on the person's behalf.

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 purpose and the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, and the step sequence is easy to follow. It loses a point for re-quoting the full consent sentence, which is already carried verbatim in the schema's consent field description.

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-annotation, no-output-schema, two-call mutation flow with a nested answers object, the description supplies everything needed: the step gating, the returned artifacts, the token round-trip, and the downstream email confirmation.

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 meaning the schema cannot: answers are keyed by field key obtained from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and is only passed after the person approves the summary. That workflow linkage is genuinely beyond the field descriptions.

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 (submits) plus the exact resource (an enquiry to Commercial Laundry Cost) and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are clearly the discovery/definition siblings.

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 the condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees'), names the inputs each call requires, and states the when-not ('NOT a purchase'). Nothing about sequencing is left to inference.

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