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 so well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the service is free, plus what the response contains (recipients, consent wording, confirmation step). It could go further on side effects or what the caller must do with the returned consent text, but the key behavioral profile is disclosed.

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, front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first,' and every clause (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote, what is returned) carries distinct information. No filler.

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 describe tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers both the nature of the enquiry and the shape of the return (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), which is exactly what an agent needs. Nothing material 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds nothing param-related, but none is 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 states a specific function: it explains what submit_enquiry does on this CRM agency, i.e. a read-only informational/describe tool. It clearly contrasts itself with the act of submitting ('something submit_enquiry does') and explains the nature of the enquiry (human providers, direct quotes). It does not explicitly differentiate from the other sibling, enquiry_fields, so it falls 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 opening 'Read first' is an explicit ordering instruction that tells the agent to call this before submit_enquiry, and the body reinforces that by naming submit_enquiry. There is no stated when-not or explicit comparison to enquiry_fields, so it stops short of a 5.

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 it does disclose the shape of what comes back (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options) plus how that output feeds submit_enquiry. It stops short of stating that the call is a non-mutating read or whether the field list can change between calls.

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: the first front-loads what the tool returns with a compact enumeration, the second gives the downstream action. No filler and nothing restated from the 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the return-value burden itself, and it does by listing every field attribute returned. It also closes the loop on how to use the result, so an agent can call it and act on it without further information.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing in the schema to clarify. The description's mention of keying answers by field key is useful cross-tool semantics (for submit_enquiry) but is not a parameter of this 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 names a specific resource (every field of the CRM agency enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each field contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. The retrieving verb is only implied by the noun-phrase framing, and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 implied through the workflow hint 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', which tells the agent this is the discovery step before submission. However, it never states when to call this instead of enquiry_describe, nor any prerequisite or exclusion, so guidance is only inferential.

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 does so: it discloses the validation pass, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the requirement that the person approve before step 2, the outbound email, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked. That is substantial side-effect and prerequisite disclosure for an unannotated tool.

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 purchase/quote disclaimer, then proceeds step-by-step; every sentence carries operational information. Slightly dense in one unbroken paragraph, and the consent sentence is quoted nearly verbatim from the schema's consent description, a small 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?

With no output schema and a nested free-form 'answers' object, the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns and what step 2 produces. Field keys are delegated to the named sibling enquiry_fields, which is the correct division of labor, so nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it ties 'answers' to field keys sourced from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, spells out the consent condition, and — most usefully — explains that 'confirmation' is only supplied on step 2 after approval, which the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to CRM agency') and immediately draws the boundary that matters: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' Combined with the title, an agent can distinguish this from enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly sequences the two calls: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also states the gating condition for consent and the requirement that the person click an email link, so when-to-call and when-not-to-call are both covered.

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