site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose its return content: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It also clarifies the non-committal nature of the enquiry (nothing bought, no guaranteed quote, free). It does not explicitly state that this tool itself is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, leaving a small 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?

'Read first.' is front-loaded as the key directive, then the function is stated in one dense but useful sentence. No filler, though the single long sentence packs several ideas together.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. For a zero-parameter informational tool with no annotations, this is largely sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 function: it explains what submit_enquiry does (a human enquiry flow that is free, non-binding, no guaranteed quote) and returns the consent/recipient details. It is distinguishable from enquiry_fields and submit_enquiry by being the explanatory/read-first tool. It is slightly indirect in that it frames itself via a sibling's behavior rather than its own output, but the purpose is clear.

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?

'Read first' gives explicit sequencing guidance, positioning this tool ahead of submit_enquiry. It does not name enquiry_fields as an alternative or state explicit exclusions, but the context of use is clear.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape in detail (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It also discloses the contract that answers must be keyed by field key. It stops short of stating permissions or confirming the read-only nature explicitly.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then the integration hint. No filler and every clause earns its 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?

Given there is no output schema, the field enumeration is essential and present, and the submit_enquiry linkage closes the loop for the agent. The only gap is the relationship to enquiry_describe, which is left for the agent to work out.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed; nothing further is required.

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 names the specific resource (every field of the Copywriting for SEO enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each field carries: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the 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?

It gives downstream workflow guidance ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), which implies the discover-then-submit pattern. However, it never states when to use this versus enquiry_describe, so the agent must infer the split between the two sibling lookup tools.

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 supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token, that step 2 actually submits, and that the person then receives an email with a click-to-confirm link required before any provider sees the enquiry. The externally visible side effects and the consent semantics are spelled out.

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 purpose and the two steps are front-loaded and the Step 1 / Step 2 labelling makes the flow scannable. It is dense but justified, with only minor redundancy in restating the full consent sentence that the 'consent' schema property already quotes verbatim.

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 must explain returns and does: a summary, consent line and confirmation token from step 1, and an email-gated submission after step 2. For a nested-object, side-effecting mutation tool, an agent has everything needed to execute both calls 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real semantic value: it explains that answers must be keyed by field key from 'enquiry_fields', that consent=true encodes a specific quoted statement, and that 'confirmation' is only supplied in step 2 after approval — sequencing information the schema alone does not convey.

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 names a specific verb and resource (submit an enquiry to human providers) and immediately scopes it with two negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') that separate it from commercial transaction tools. It also cross-references the sibling 'enquiry_fields' as the source of field keys, making its role distinct within the trio.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate and obtain a token, step 2 only after the person agrees. The conditional gate ('only if the person agrees') and the show-the-summary instruction tell the agent precisely when each call is warranted, and the negations tell it when not to use the tool.

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