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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so excellently. It reveals that submission is two-step, requires consent, produces a confirmation token, and that the person receives an email with a clickable link before providers see anything. It even includes the exact consent wording, which is critical for correct invocation.

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 most important distinction ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then walks through the two steps in order. Despite covering a complex flow, it avoids redundancy and remains well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the preconditions, the step-by-step flow, the confirmation token, the consent requirement, and the post-submission email behavior. The only minor omission is explicit error handling, but that is not necessary for an agent 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It explains when the confirmation token is needed, that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, and the exact meaning of consent. This gives an agent practical knowledge not fully captured in the parameter descriptions 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Cyber Insurance Cost.' It also explicitly distinguishes this from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and the title reinforces the two-step nature. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and easily separable from the sibling 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 provides a clear two-step usage workflow: first call with answers and consent, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, giving helpful cross-tool context. It does not explicitly say 'do not use this tool for X,' but the usage conditions are clearly defined.

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