site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does useful work: it states the operation is free, that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the tool returns specific content (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not explicitly state that this describe tool itself has no side effects, but describing an enquiry rather than performing one is strongly implied.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence earns its place: scope, key disclaimers, and return contents. No redundancy or 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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, and the key caveats an agent needs before submitting an enquiry. Nothing critical 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 has zero parameters and the schema already reflects that with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. Baseline of 4 applies; the description reinforces that no input is needed by focusing entirely on what the tool returns.

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 uses a specific verb ('states plainly') and names the resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Damp Survey Prices'), so an agent can tell it is an explanatory companion to submission, not the submission itself. It clearly communicates the core meaning—an enquiry with human providers, no purchase or guaranteed quote—but does not explicitly differentiate itself from the other sibling 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?

The opening 'Read first' gives a clear instruction to consult this tool before acting, and the description explains the submission process so an agent knows when it is relevant. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job by disclosing exactly what the tool exposes: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but nothing in the description implies side effects and the content is described concretely.

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 with no filler: the first enumerates the returned field metadata, and the second connects the tool to the submission flow. Every sentence earns its place and the key scoping detail is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is sufficient: it states the exact resource, the field metadata returned, and how to use the results. Minor gaps are the lack of an explicit no-side-effects statement and no direct comparison to sibling enquiry_describe, but the description still gives enough to select and 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no schema gap to compensate for. The description adds useful forward context by explaining that returned field keys should be used when calling submit_enquiry.

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 ('every field of the Damp Survey Prices enquiry') and enumerates the contained elements, so an agent can tell this is the field-definition tool rather than submit_enquiry or enquiry_describe. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'lists' or 'returns', which keeps it from 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 instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key clearly signals when this tool is useful: before submitting answers, get the field keys. It provides actionable context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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 fully carries behavior disclosure. It explains validation, the returned confirmation token, the email notification, the click requirement, and the exact meaning of consent, including the quoted consent line. This gives the agent a realistic model of side effects and prerequisites.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the non-purchase/non-quote caveat, then structures the two steps clearly. The consent line is quoted verbatim, which avoids ambiguity. No filler or repetition.

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 two-step complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is unusually complete. It tells the agent what to send, what to show the person, what to expect back, when to call again, and what happens after submission. The only implicit dependency is enquiry_fields, which is explicitly named.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential flow-level meaning: confirmation is the step-1 token that enables step-2 submission, consent has an exact quoted text, and answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. This is significant value beyond the schema's property 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Submits an enquiry to Damp Survey Prices' — and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase and a guaranteed quote. It also ties to the sibling tool enquiry_fields, making its role in the workflow unambiguous.

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 two-step procedure is spelled out explicitly: first call validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, second call is only for after the person agrees and includes the token. It also states that a click on the email link is required before providers see the enquiry, giving clear when-to-proceed conditions.

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