site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses domain-level behavior of the enquiry flow (nothing is bought or paid, no quote guaranteed, it is free) and the consent/confirmation model, which is genuine context. It does not, however, state that this particular tool is side-effect free or read-only.

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?

"Read first" is properly front-loaded, but the body drifts into describing the sibling tool and carries SEO-style phrasing ("Digital marketing agency Swindon") that does not help an agent act. It is compact but not tightly focused on this tool.

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 does cover what the caller receives (recipients, consent wording, confirmation path) and the nature of the enquiry. Little is left ambiguous about the call itself, though the split of responsibility with enquiry_fields is unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics to document. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap here.

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 name and title signal a read/describe tool, and the description does say it "Also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms." But most of the text describes what the sibling submit_enquiry does rather than what this tool returns, so the agent must infer that this is the informational counterpart to submit_enquiry.

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 implicit ordering cue (call this before submit_enquiry), which is useful. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus enquiry_fields, and there is no when-not guidance.

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 exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does describe the returned attributes (including conditional fields like allowed options 'where there are any'), which is meaningful return-shape transparency in the absence of an output schema. It stays silent on auth requirements, rate limits, or caching/error behavior.

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 compact sentences, with the returned-field inventory front-loaded and the chaining instruction last. The phrasing 'where there are any' is slightly loose but costs little; there is no filler or restatement of the title.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description supplies the two things an agent actually needs: what each field record contains and how those keys feed submit_enquiry. It is close to complete for a simple zero-arg discovery tool; only the relationship to enquiry_describe is left unresolved.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant semantics for the consumption side — answers must be keyed by the field key this tool returns — which is useful linkage even though it concerns a sibling tool's inputs rather than this one's.

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 names the specific resource — every field of the Digital marketing agency Swindon enquiry — and enumerates its shape (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not open with an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', and it does not distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, only from submit_enquiry.

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 gives one concrete workflow cue — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which tells the agent this is a discovery step feeding a submission. However it says nothing about when to prefer this over the sibling enquiry_describe, nor about any prerequisites or ordering beyond that hint.

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 that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry is not actually submitted until step 2, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees it, and exactly what consent represents. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 purpose and the 'not a purchase' scoping before the step breakdown, and the step structure makes the length easy to scan. The verbatim consent text is lengthy but is materially necessary to the workflow rather than 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety-critical chain: validation, what each step returns, the double-consent gate, and the post-submission email verification before providers see the enquiry. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines answers, consent and confirmation. The description still adds procedural semantics the schema does not convey: which parameters belong to which step, that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and that confirmation is required only in step 2. It goes beyond the baseline of 3.

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 Digital marketing agency Swindon') and immediately scopes it by negation ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which separates it from the sibling enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields helpers. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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?

Explicitly lays out the two-call protocol, the condition that gates each call (consent=true for step 1; only after the person approves the summary and with the token for step 2), and what to show the person in between. This is unambiguous when-and-how guidance rather than implied usage.

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