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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it excels: it discloses the two-step behavior, the consent requirement and exact consent text, the confirmation token, the email with a link, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked. It also clearly states the operation is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core purpose and exclusions, then structures the two steps clearly. The length is justified by the workflow complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 achieves (submission, email, provider visibility). The workflow, consent handling, and field-key reference to enquiry_fields give an agent everything needed to invoke the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds process-level meaning beyond the schema: it explains how 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, how 'consent' must be true, and the exact role of the 'confirmation' token across the two steps. This is more than schema repetition.

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 ('submits an enquiry') and resource ('Confined Space Training Cost'), and explicitly distinguishes this from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It clearly positions the tool as the submission step, separate from the sibling describe/fields 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?

The description gives explicit step-by-step usage: call once with answers and consent, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the workflow context is clear and actionable.

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