site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally well: it discloses no purchase/order/payment, no guaranteed quote, free nature, human providers, and what information is returned. This is rich behavioral context for a zero-parameter 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 compact, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence adds meaningful information. It covers purpose, behavioral caveats, and return content without unnecessary 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 description tool with no output schema, this is complete: it explains what the tool returns, sets expectations, and differentiates from the related submit_enquiry workflow. No crucial context 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics because none exist, and it instead focuses on the tool's output and context.

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 tool as an informational pre-read that explains what submit_enquiry does, listing concrete points such as no purchase, no payment, and no guaranteed quote. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the submit_enquiry sibling by saying 'Read first.'

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 a clear usage cue that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry, and the description positions it as the safe/exploratory alternative. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous enough for this simple tool.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It tells the agent exactly what data will be returned (field metadata, allowed options) and how the output should be used. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any edge cases, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool this is a solid explanation.

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, front-loaded with the core meaning and ending with actionable guidance. Every phrase adds value: the field attributes are enumerated compactly, and the relationship to submit_enquiry is stated directly. No redundant words.

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?

The tool is simple, has no parameters, and the description covers the return content and downstream usage. The only notable omission is not mentioning the sibling enquiry_describe or clarifying the return format (e.g., object vs array), but overall it is sufficient for an agent to call and use the result 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 takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to add. The description instead clarifies the meaning of the output, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is warranted for a no-parameter tool.

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 the tool returns every field of the enquiry with key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This is specific and easily understood. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not directly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it misses the top score.

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 clear context: use this tool to discover field keys and then pass answers to submit_enquiry using those keys. This implicitly explains when to use it relative to submit_enquiry. It does not, however, mention when to use enquiry_describe instead or provide any exclusion criteria.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the two-step validation/submission behavior, the confirmation-token requirement, the email-link step, and the exact consent wording. It also clarifies that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, which is important behavioral context. Minor gap: it doesn't describe the shape of the summary returned in Step 1, but there is no output schema and the token field is defined in the schema. Overall strong behavioral disclosure.

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 detailed but efficient, using a two-step structure that is easy to follow. Every sentence earns its place: it clarifies non-purchase status, the validation/submission flow, the email-link condition, and the consent text. Slightly long, but justified given the workflow complexity; the structure helps readability.

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 multi-step submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It defines when to call, what parameters mean, what the person must see and approve, and what happens after submission. It also points to enquiry_fields for the answer keys, covering the main unknown. The only minor omission is what the Step 1 summary looks like, but that is offset by the lack of an output schema and the tool's role in the flow.

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 practical meaning: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true only when the person has agreed to the exact wording, and that confirmation is the token from Step 1 used after approval. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions and clarifies the parameter's role in the workflow.

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 is highly specific: it names the resource (enquiry to Dilapidations Cost), the action (submit), and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also differentiates this from sibling tools by describing the two-step submission flow, so an agent can clearly identify what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 when-to-use guidance: it outlines Step 1 and Step 2, tells when to call the tool again (only if the person agrees), and states what must happen before any provider sees the enquiry (email link click). It also gives consent-wording requirements and references sibling context (enquiry_fields) for answer keys. This is clear usage guidance.

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