site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses that no purchase/order/payment occurs, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool returns consent wording and confirmation details. This gives a clear behavioral profile for an informational 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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and uses three focused sentences. There is minor redundancy with the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote', but each sentence adds meaningful content.

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, no-output-schema descriptive tool, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, boundaries, costs, and return content. An agent knows what to expect and can decide whether to invoke it before submit_enquiry.

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 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful context about what the tool returns and the nature of the enquiry, but no parameter-level explanation 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 states a specific verb-resource pair: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and explains the enquiry flow with human providers. It clearly distinguishes this informational tool from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry by emphasizing that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid.

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' is an explicit usage cue telling agents to consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the tool is not for by excluding purchase/quote guarantees, though it does not explicitly mention enquiry_fields as an alternative.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates a read-only metadata lookup and specifies the meaningful output dimensions, including requiredness and allowed options. It does not describe the exact response envelope, but for a parameterless lookup that is a minor omission.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The field-content summary is front-loaded, and the downstream usage pointer comes second, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully tells the agent what will be returned and how to use that information with submit_enquiry. No critical details needed to call the tool correctly are 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, so the schema is trivially complete and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic guidance by explaining that field keys should be used when passing answers to submit_enquiry, even though there are no actual 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 exact resource, the Development Exit Finance enquiry, and lists the returned attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also anchors the tool's purpose by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, distinguishing it from the submission sibling.

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 clear usage context: retrieve field definitions so answers can be sent to submit_enquiry using the correct field keys. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use this tool or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it stops 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 provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the two-step validation/submission flow, the fact that step 1 does not submit, that step 2 sends an email requiring a link click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This goes well beyond a simple 'submit' and gives the agent a complete mental 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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then structured into Step 1 and Step 2 with precise instructions. The consent line is quoted once in the description and once in the schema, but because consent accuracy is critical, this repetition is justified rather than wasteful.

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?

This is a complex two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is self-contained: it explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what to do with that output, what step 2 does, and what the person will receive. It even references enquiry_fields for defining answer keys, covering the prerequisite. Nothing essential 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, and the description adds meaningful process context: answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', consent must be true with the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token from step 1 after the person approves. This maps the parameters to the workflow. It does not add formatting details for answers, but the schema already covers accepted types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Development Exit Finance', immediately clarifying what the tool does. It further distinguishes itself by explicitly stating 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', and the two-step process makes the action unambiguous. The sibling tools are clearly descriptive (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while this is the submission action, so no confusion remains.

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 explicit step-by-step usage instructions: call once with answers and consent=true to get a token, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the same answers plus the token only if the person agrees. It also specifies that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, pointing to the relevant sibling tool, and warns against treating this as a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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