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 well: it declares the interaction is free, nothing is bought/ordered/paid, and no quote is guaranteed, which sets accurate expectations about the operation's nature. It also previews the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow), though it omits whether this is purely read-only and whether calling it has side effects.

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 then packs the essential disclaimers and return-content summary into a few dense sentences. It is slightly wordy ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does on CRM for trades') but every clause carries useful information.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema informational tool, the description covers the important ground: what the enquiry is, what it is not, and what the response describes. No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by summarizing the return content, leaving only minor gaps about read-only behavior.

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 for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level semantics are needed or expected here.

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 clear purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does and what an enquiry entails (human providers quoting directly). It names the sibling submit_enquiry and clarifies scope (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), but it does not differentiate itself from enquiry_fields, and its framing ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') is slightly indirect about the tool's own 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?

'Read first' gives explicit ordering guidance that positions this as a prerequisite read before acting on the enquiry flow. It does not, however, state when not to use it or explicitly contrast it with enquiry_fields, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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. It does disclose the shape of the returned data (labels, types, requiredness, options), which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only nature, auth needs, or whether field sets vary by trade type.

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 that front-load the payload contents before the downstream usage hint. The opening phrase 'Every field of the CRM for trades enquiry' is slightly awkward and could name the enquiry resource more directly, but there is 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?

With no output schema, the description steps in to enumerate the returned fields, which is exactly the information an agent needs to consume the result. Absent are any notes on sibling disambiguation (enquiry_describe) or on whether the field list is static.

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 for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and no parameters exist to be misread.

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 makes clear this returns the enquiry's field definitions (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options), which is a specific resource and verb combination. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which the agent must infer.

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 closing sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies the discovery-then-submit workflow, giving useful context for what to do with the result. It never states when to call this versus enquiry_describe, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and defines exactly what consent means. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation 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 purpose and the negative scoping, then walks the two steps in order. It is somewhat long and the consent sentence is duplicated almost verbatim in the schema's consent description, but no sentence is wasted.

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 two-step, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return values of step 1 (summary, consent line, token) and the post-submission email flow. An agent has everything needed to call both steps 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 is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'confirmation' is the token produced by step 1 after approval, and consent's exact semantics are restated. It goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to CRM for trades') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It references the sibling enquiry_fields for the key source, so an agent can distinguish it from the describe/fields tools without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when/when-not guidance: step 1 is called with answers and consent=true for validation, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' and requires the token from step 1. The conditional gating between the two calls is spelled out rather than implied.

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