site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about what the enquiry does and does not entail: 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself has no side effects, but 'States plainly' implies it is informational.

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 and front-loaded with the critical directive 'Read first.' Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's subject, the second explains outcomes and return content. There is no redundant 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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what the enquiry involves, what caveats exist, and what information will be returned. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation or expectation-setting.

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 parameter-semantics baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the return content even though no parameters need explanation. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps 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 the tool's purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on DSEAR Assessment Cost' and explains the enquiry process with human providers. It distinguishes itself from the action-oriented submit_enquiry by being the 'Read first' explanatory tool. The title also reinforces that this describes an enquiry rather than performing a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 explicitly opens with 'Read first,' signaling this should be used before taking action with submit_enquiry. It makes the context clear: use this to understand what happens when an enquiry is submitted. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the guidance to read first before proceeding is strong 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 behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent about the output contents and notes that options appear only where applicable ('where there are any'). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the nature of a field-listing tool makes that sufficiently clear.

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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence listing the exact output coverage and the second sentence giving actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential return fields and connects to the downstream submit_enquiry workflow. It lacks an explicit response format or a note about ordering/edge cases, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to use it 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed; it instead focuses on the return contents, which is appropriate.

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 resource ('Every field of the DSEAR Assessment Cost enquiry') and enumerates what is returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It distinguishes this tool from submit_enquiry by instructing that answers should be passed there using field keys, though it 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?

It gives a clear usage context: retrieve field metadata so answers can be submitted to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to enquiry_describe, but the primary workflow is well implied.

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 behavioral burden and does so richly: it is not a purchase or a guaranteed quote, step 1 only validates, an email verification link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, up to three assessors may be contacted, and consent can be withdrawn for future firms. The verbatim consent scope and its consequences are disclosed in detail.

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?

Purpose and the two-step flow are front-loaded, and the length is largely driven by the mandated verbatim consent wording that must be reproduced for legal accuracy. There is minor redundancy between the title and the opening ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), but overall each element 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 nested-object, two-phase submission tool with no output schema, the description covers validation behavior, what step 1 returns, what triggers step 2, the email-confirmation gate, and the exact consent scope. Nothing an agent needs to invoke either step 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true at both steps, and that the confirmation token is the one returned by step 1 after the person approves the summary. That sequencing context is not present in the schema text.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to DSEAR Assessment Cost') and immediately disambiguates the intent from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. It is clearly distinct from the read-only siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which supply schema/field metadata rather than submitting anything.

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 an explicit two-step procedure: step 1 with answers and consent=true returns a summary/consent line/token, and step 2 should only be called 'if the person agrees' with the token. The gating condition and sequencing are fully spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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