site

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 clearly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and what the return content covers. It does not explicitly state that invoking this tool itself has no submission side effects, though 'Read first' strongly implies it.

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 about purpose, cost, guarantees, and return content. There is no wasted wording.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it explains what the tool does, what it does not do, and what the returned details include. No critical gap remains for an agent to invoke 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 there is no parameter documentation burden. The description adds context about what the returned information contains, which is the relevant semantic content for this 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 identifies the tool as an explainer of what submit_enquiry does, with specific scope: it starts an enquiry, is free, and is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It is not a tautology and adds useful distinctions, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from enquiry_fields.

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 opening 'Read first' is explicit guidance to use this tool before acting, and the description names submit_enquiry as the behavior it explains. However, it does not explicitly address when not to use it or compare it with enquiry_fields beyond the general framing.

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the output content (field attributes) and implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It also provides the context for using the results with submit_enquiry. However, it does not mention error conditions, pagination, or exact response format, which are gaps for a tool without annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key attributes. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 simple metadata tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It enumerates the fields and gives a usage pointer. While it could specify the exact return format (e.g., a list of objects), the described attributes are enough for an agent to understand what to expect. Overall, it is complete for its simplicity.

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 correctly avoids parameter explanations since none exist. It adds no parameter semantics because there are none to add, 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 states that the tool returns every field of the Duct Cleaning Quotes enquiry, listing the attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by focusing on field structure, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 a practical usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This implies when to use the tool (to obtain field keys for submission). However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of enquiry_describe or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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 full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that submission is two-step, that providers see nothing until the person clicks the emailed link, and that consent requires reading a specific privacy statement. It also states what step 1 returns and what must be shown to the person.

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 is load-bearing: the two-step protocol, the consent text, and the email-link condition are all necessary for correct invocation. It front-loads the most important caveat (not a purchase/quote) and keeps a logical order.

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 two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is complete: it explains the flow, the user-interaction requirement (show summary, get agreement), the confirmation token, and the post-submission email-link gate. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is left unexplained. The only minor wrinkle is that confirmation is not marked required in the schema even though step 2 requires it, but the description resolves this.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the description adds conditional semantics — the confirmation token is only used in step 2, and answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields keys — which goes beyond the schema. It earns a 4.

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 Duct Cleaning Quotes') and explicitly disambiguates the action: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It does not rely on the tool name and is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step conditions: call with answers and consent=true, then call again with confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also names enquiry_fields as the source of field keys and clarifies what the service is not (a purchase/quote). This is unusually actionable.

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