site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that quotes are not guaranteed, that it is free, and what the tool returns. It also reveals the consequence of the enquiry flow (human providers quote directly).

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, key caveats, and return content. It is slightly dense but appropriately sized for a zero-parameter explanatory tool.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly explains the return value: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. Combined with the explicit caveats and free nature, an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

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 the schema documents that completely, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. 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 opens with 'Read first' and states plainly that this tool describes what submit_enquiry does, making its meta-purpose explicit. It names the exact resource (submit_enquiry on Concrete Pumping Hire) and differentiates the describe action from the submission action.

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 'Read first' signals the intended use as a precursor to submit_enquiry, and the caveats clarify when an enquiry is appropriate. It does not explicitly delimit against the sibling enquiry_fields, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is the orientation/explanation tool.

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. It does disclose what data is returned per field and how the output keys connect to submit_enquiry. It does not state the response container format (array vs. keyed object) or explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, though for a parameterless metadata tool this is a modest gap.

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 zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and contents of the returned data; the second sentence adds the crucial consumption hint tying output keys to submit_enquiry. Both sentences earn their 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 low-complexity parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to use the returned keys. The main omission is not addressing the sibling enquiry_describe, which could leave an agent uncertain about which tool to select.

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 0 parameters, which sets a baseline of 4 per the rubric. No parameter documentation is needed, and the description correctly focuses on the output rather than inventing parameter semantics.

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 ('Every field of the Concrete Pumping Hire enquiry') and enumerates precisely what each field entry contains: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. The only gap is the absence of an explicit verb (list/get/return) and no direct differentiation from the similarly named sibling enquiry_describe.

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 second sentence provides actionable guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which implies this tool is a prerequisite for submitting an enquiry. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no guidance on how enquiry_fields differs from enquiry_describe.

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 behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the consent requirement with the exact consent text, the email with a required click-through, and that providers only see the enquiry after that click. This is strong transparency about side effects and sequencing.

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 average but every sentence earns its place by explaining a necessary workflow step or constraint. It front-loads the critical 'not a purchase' clarification and then logically structures the two-step process without 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 complex two-step tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 requires, and what happens after submission (email link, provider visibility). An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly across both steps.

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?

Although the input schema already documents all parameters, the description adds meaningful workflow semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 after approval. This enriches the bare schema definitions with operational meaning.

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 action (submitting an enquiry), the resource (Concrete Pumping Hire), and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also names the two-step workflow, making the tool's purpose unambiguous relative to its 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?

The description provides explicit step-by-step usage guidance: step 1 with answers and consent=true to get a token, then step 2 only after the person agrees and with the token. It also states the exclusion condition ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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