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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the exact step-1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the mandatory re-call pattern, the post-submit email-link gating before any provider sees data, and the full text of what consent means. This covers safety, state machine and side effects in one place.

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 scope statement and then ordered by step, so it reads well. The one inefficiency is reproducing the entire consent sentence verbatim, which already exists in the consent parameter's schema description — duplication that lengthens the block without adding information.

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: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a token; step 2 triggers submission and an email link. For a two-step, nested-object, consent-sensitive tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke 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, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: 'answers' is keyed by field key originating from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only after agreement, and 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and is used only in the second call. That last point is procedural context present nowhere in the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Dilapidations Cost') and immediately scopes it with two negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which removes the most likely misreading for a sibling tool set involving describe/fields steps. An agent can distinguish this from enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe 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 description gives an unusually explicit when-to-call sequence: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the token, and it references enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys. It stops short of naming the sibling tools directly (e.g. what enquiry_describe is for vs this), which is the only gap.

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