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 does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the side effect of submission, and the downstream consequence that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It even documents the exact consent scope and that details go to up to three contractors who can be stopped.

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 the key disclaimers and structured as Step 1 / Step 2, which reads well. It loses a point for repeating the full consent sentence verbatim, which already appears in the schema's consent description, and for the overall length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token, plus the email/link follow-up). For a mutation tool with no annotations and a nested answers object, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that the confirmation token comes specifically from step 1 after the person approves the summary, and that step 2 reuses the same answers.

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 Demolition Quotes') and immediately scopes it with what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also points at the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys, so an agent can tell this apart from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without opening any 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?

The two-step protocol is spelled out with an explicit gate: step 1 to validate and get a token, step 2 only if the person agrees. 'Not a purchase' implicitly excludes transactional use, but no alternative tool is named for the purchase case, so the when-not side is slightly thinner than the when side.

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