site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only informational role ('states', 'returns') and details what the output contains, but it does not explicitly declare that the tool has no side effects, does not require permissions, or is non-mutating. For a describe tool, the read-only nature is implicit but not stated outright.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and covers the essential points in a few sentences. It is slightly verbose with redundant phrasing ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free') but remains efficient and well-structured for its purpose.

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?

Given the tool has no input schema, no output schema, and is a simple describe operation, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to submit_enquiry. It does not mention error conditions, but for an informational tool this is not a critical gap.

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 for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters and does not add anything beyond that, which is appropriate for a parameterless 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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Energy Audit Cost. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a read-first informational tool, not the submission tool itself, and it enumerates the key points (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote) that clarify its scope.

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 begins with 'Read first,' which clearly implies this should be used before calling submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the tool is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to enquiry_fields. The usage guidance is strong but not fully explicit 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only retrieval of field metadata but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or that it does not require authentication. The mention of submit_enquiry is a usage hint rather than a disclosure of this tool's behavior. A 3 is appropriate because the description is not misleading but lacks explicit behavioral guarantees.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence defines the tool's output completely, and the second provides a direct usage hint. No redundant wording, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the content of the returned fields and how to use them with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state the response format (e.g., array of objects), but that is easily inferable. The absence of pagination or error details is minor for such a simple tool.

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 schema provides no parameter information. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics because there are none; it focuses on the output structure, which is acceptable given the lack of inputs.

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 Energy Audit Cost enquiry, specifying the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It also names the sibling submit_enquiry and implies this tool is for retrieving field definitions, distinguishing it from the submission tool.

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 provides clear context: this tool is for fetching field definitions, and it explicitly advises passing answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not mention the alternative enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity about sibling differentiation.

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 well: it discloses the two-call validation flow, the confirmation-token requirement, the downstream effect (details sent to up to three chosen assessors who contact the person directly), and the email verification step that must happen before any provider sees the enquiry. It does not mention idempotency or error behavior, but the state-changing consequences are unusually well disclosed.

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 distinction (not a purchase) and then ordered by step, so an agent can act directly. The verbatim consent quote is duplicated from the schema text, which is the only real redundancy; everything else earns its place, though the sentence is long.

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 mutation flow with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: the two-step protocol, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), and the post-submission email-verification behavior. Nothing essential to correct invocation is absent.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it tells the agent that answers are keyed by field key from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, that consent=true is a precondition rather than a mere flag, and that confirmation is the token returned in step 1 after the person approves the summary. That maps usage context onto all three parameters beyond their 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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Energy Audit Cost) and immediately disambiguates it from what it is not: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The distinction from siblings enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe is implicit but the name-plus-title-plus-description triple leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 when-to-call guidance for both steps ('Step 1: call with the answers... and consent=true', 'Step 2: only if the person agrees, call again with... the confirmation token'), including the gating condition and the requirement to show the person the summary and consent line before proceeding. This is a textbook when/when-not specification.

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