site

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the underlying submit_enquiry flow involves no purchase, no guaranteed quote, and no cost, and it states exactly what the tool returns. It could be more explicit that this tool itself is read-only, but the informational framing makes that clear.

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 short sentences with the key instruction 'Read first' front-loaded. Minor redundancy with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' vs 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed') keeps it from a 5.

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 without an output schema, the description is self-contained: it explains the purpose, the domain, the reassurance about cost/purchase, and the return content. It could more directly define the tool's relation to enquiry_fields, but the essential facts an agent needs are present.

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 and schema coverage is vacuously 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter meaning 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 says the tool 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and lists the returned details (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), so its informational role is clear. It names submit_enquiry as the subject and implicitly contrasts with that action tool, though it never explicitly contrasts with enquiry_fields.

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 an explicit when-to-use directive, telling the agent to consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It doesn't spell out when to prefer enquiry_fields or explicitly say 'use instead of', but the reading-first instruction provides a clear use context.

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 burden, and it discloses the full shape of the returned field metadata rather than just naming the tool. It also signals that options are only included where they exist, which sets expectations about optional data. It does not state side-effect safety, but for a read-only fields listing that is implied by the content.

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, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and contents, and the second sentence gives the follow-up action needed to use the results. 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?

For a simple zero-parameter metadata endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the fields returned and connects them to the submission workflow. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about the meaning of a field key (used to key answers for submit_enquiry), which is useful even though there are no input parameters to document.

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 (Cyber Insurance Cost enquiry fields) and enumerates the exact metadata returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by instructing that answers are passed to that tool keyed by field key, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not contrast with 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 provides a concrete usage context: collect the field keys here, then pass answer values to submit_enquiry keyed by those field keys. This is clear guidance for the main workflow, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer enquiry_describe or when not to use this tool.

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 substantially well: it discloses the validation step, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double opt-in email link that gates provider visibility, distribution to 'up to three' brokers, and that the person can stop further firms. It does not describe failure behavior when validation fails (e.g., bad field keys or missing answers), which for a form-submission tool is a real 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 core distinction ('NOT a purchase') and the step ordering are front-loaded and every operational sentence earns its place. It loses a point for reproducing the full consent string verbatim, which already appears in the schema's consent property description, creating a long duplicated block.

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 compensates by naming what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after submission (email with a link the person must click before any provider sees it). For a two-step, nested-object tool, an agent has everything needed to complete the flow 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 genuinely non-schema meaning about how parameters relate across calls: 'answers' keyed by enquiry_fields keys, 'consent' tied to the two-step gating, and 'confirmation' only valid as a token returned from step 1 after approval. That sequencing semantics is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 Cyber Insurance Cost') and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It is clearly distinguished from siblings enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which the description references rather than duplicates.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same payload plus the confirmation token. It also routes the agent to enquiry_fields for the field keys, so the sequencing and prerequisites are unambiguous.

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