site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool 'returns' several pieces of information and conveys that the enquiry process is non-transactional. However, it never explicitly states that this tool itself has no side effects, and it does not describe the output format, leaving a moderate transparency 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the key directive 'Read first,' and every sentence adds relevant information about the tool's purpose or return content. It avoids redundancy and padded language.

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 is largely complete: it explains the tool's purpose, gives a usage cue, and names the return contents. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not specify whether the result is plain text or structured data, which is a minor completeness 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, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add; the input schema is effectively complete. A baseline of 4 is appropriate because no parameter documentation is needed and the description does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 frames the tool as an informational precursor ('Read first') and states it describes what submit_enquiry does, including the key caveats that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed. It also specifies what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from the sibling submit_enquiry.

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 instruction 'Read first' provides clear when-to-use guidance: call this before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly compare against enquiry_fields or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full usage routing among all siblings.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It specifies exactly the kind of data returned (field metadata and options) and how the output should be used with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that this is read-only, but the content description makes the non-mutating nature evident.

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 tight sentences deliver the full scope of the tool in order: first the returned field attributes, then the downstream usage. No filler or repetition of the tool name or title.

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 parameterless metadata tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It names the specific enquiry, enumerates the returned field properties, and connects the output to submit_enquiry. A minor gap is not explicitly describing the output container or format, but that is not essential 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema coverage is effectively 100%, so the schema places no burden on the description. The description adds relevant conceptual semantics by explaining that keys are meant to be used when passing answers to 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 clearly identifies the resource (the Confined Space Training Cost enquiry) and the content delivered: every field with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists,' but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like submit_enquiry.

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 actionable usage context: answers for submit_enquiry should be keyed by the field keys returned by this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but it clearly establishes the relationship to submit_enquiry and implies this is the lookup step before submitting.

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 behavioral burden, and it does disclose a lot: no purchase/no guaranteed quote, server-side validation, a returned summary plus confirmation token, a double-opt-in email link, distribution to up to three providers, and the ability to stop further sharing. It nonetheless omits failure modes (what happens on validation error, token expiry, or repeat submission).

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 step ordering is front-loaded and useful, but the consent sentence is reproduced almost verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is duplicated payload. Removing that quote would lose nothing, so the text is denser than it needs to be.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), which is exactly what an agent needs. A nested-object input and a two-phase state machine, however, would benefit from naming what happens if step 2 is called with a stale or missing token – that gap keeps it short of 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both the answers-keying and consent wording already live in the schema, so the structured fields do most of the work. The description adds real meaning for the optional 'confirmation' parameter – it must be the token from step 1 and only after the person approves the summary – but not for answers or consent.

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 verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Confined Space Training Cost") and immediately negative-scopes it ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). It also implicitly separates itself from the sibling helpers enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe by naming enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys.

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?

Usage is spelled out as an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, Step 2 only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. The gate condition that selects each call is stated rather than left to inference.

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