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, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the two-step validate-then-submit flow, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token that must be shown to the person, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the data, and the exact downstream fan-out to up to three contractors. These are real 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?

The critical disclaimers ('NOT a purchase') are front-loaded and the two steps are ordered logically. It is long, and the consent text is essentially duplicated from the schema, but that repetition is justified because the agent must display the consent line verbatim to the user.

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, no-output-schema, nested-object tool this is complete: it explains what step 1 returns, what the token is for, when to proceed to step 2, and the downstream consequences of consent. Nothing needed 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds flow-level meaning by tying 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields and by sequencing the confirmation token between step 1 and step 2. It does not add value-type or format constraints beyond the schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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 Duct Cleaning Quotes') and immediately scopes it against the two most likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also cross-references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, so an agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit, conditional when-to-call rules for both invocations: step 1 with answers + consent=true; step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition (human approval) is spelled out rather than implied.

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