site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool is informational, emphasizes that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, and states what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation mechanism. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter describe 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the key 'Read first.' instruction, followed by the core purpose and return-value summary. It is slightly redundant with the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' phrasing, but every sentence otherwise 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 informational tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool communicates, the non-commercial nature, and the returned information categories. It does not specify the exact output structure, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 schema already fully covers the input surface and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable because there are no 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 states that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Demolition Quotes, using a specific verb and a well-scoped subject. It distinguishes itself from actually submitting an enquiry and from sibling tools by framing itself as the 'Read first' explanation resource.

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 'Read first.' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before taking action, which is clear usage guidance. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions relative to enquiry_fields, 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral expectations. It describes the returned content but does not explicitly state that calling this tool is read-only or side-effect-free. For a metadata/inspection tool this is a modest gap, but an explicit note about its safe, read-only nature would improve transparency.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence lists the returned fields efficiently, and the second gives direct, actionable guidance. Everything present 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating what will be returned and how to use that output. It could mention that no input parameters are required or clarify output formatting, but those are minor omissions for a simple field-listing tool.

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 is empty, giving a baseline of 4. The description adds useful semantics by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use when submitting answers to submit_enquiry, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 states what the tool returns: every field of the Demolition Quotes enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It is unambiguous and separates it from submit_enquiry, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not explicitly 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?

The description gives actionable guidance: use the returned field keys to pass answers to submit_enquiry. This implies the primary use case and connects it to a sibling tool. It does not explicitly say when to prefer enquiry_fields over enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 excels. It discloses the two-step interaction, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 does (submits and sends an email with a click link), and the exact consent text. It also reveals that provider visibility is gated on the person clicking the email link, which is crucial behavioral context.

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 caveat (not a purchase, not a quote), then cleanly separates step 1 and step 2, with the consent line quoted inline. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers the full workflow, input requirements, return value of step 1, the consent legal text, the post-submission email flow, and the gating condition for provider visibility. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly and know what to tell the user.

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. The description adds value by explaining that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent=true is meaningful only when the exact consent statement has been read and agreed to, and that the confirmation token originates from step 1. This goes 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 Demolition Quotes.' It immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and separates it from siblings like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are clearly not submission tools. The two-step nature of the tool is also explicit.

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 precise when-to-use instructions: call step 1 with answers and consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then call step 2 only if the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It also states the exclusion condition (not a purchase/guaranteed quote) and what must happen before a provider sees the enquiry.

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