site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that nothing is purchased or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it's free, which pertains to the underlying submit_enquiry. It also states what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). While it doesn't explicitly say 'this tool is read-only', the wording 'Read first' and 'States plainly' strongly imply a non-mutating, informational operation.

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 then explains what it does. It's slightly wordy but each sentence adds value: the first explains the scope, the second clarifies the non-transactional nature, and the third lists the returned content. No fluff, but it could be tightened slightly.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what it does, what it returns, and the context of the underlying action. It doesn't describe formatting or additional edge cases, but none are required for this simple descriptive tool. It fully equips an agent to call 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 schema trivially covers 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no parameter-related details because none are needed. It correctly focuses on behavior and return content instead.

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 explains what submit_enquiry does on Engine Rebuild Cost, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by being a read-first description tool rather than the action or fields tool. The verb 'states plainly' is specific and the resource (submit_enquiry behavior) is explicit.

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 directive to use this before submit_enquiry, implying it's the explanatory precursor. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of siblings and the tool's descriptive nature makes the usage obvious. A small gap is not naming enquiry_fields as the source for field-level details.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval by saying it returns fields, but it does not explicitly state it has no side effects or describe the output structure (e.g., array vs object). This is a minor gap for a simple query 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 a single sentence with two clauses: it front-loads the purpose (what is returned) and then adds usage guidance. It is efficient, though it could be split for readability. No wasted 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?

For a parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and how to use it. The only omission is an explicit note on the output data format, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is not critical.

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 no parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the fields returned, which is beyond the empty schema. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a 4 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 the tool returns every field of the Engine Rebuild Cost enquiry, enumerating the specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by mentioning how to use the output, but does not explicitly differentiate from enquiry_describe, so not a perfect 5.

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 explicitly instructs to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, giving a clear workflow. However, it does not state when to prefer this over the sibling enquiry_describe, though the intended use is 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 burden and does well: it discloses that the first call is non-committing and returns a summary plus token, that submission triggers an email with a click-through link required before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three builders. It does not cover error/validation failure behavior or rate limits, so not a 5.

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 distinction and the step sequence are front-loaded, and the quoted consent text is verbatim language the agent must show, so it earns its length. The single dense paragraph is harder to scan than a short numbered layout would be, which keeps it from a 5.

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 stateful, consent-sensitive submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the two-step flow, what step 1 returns, the pre-provider email confirmation gate, and the exact consent language. An agent can execute both calls correctly from this text alone.

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: 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' has a defined interpretive meaning, and 'confirmation' is specifically the token returned from step 1 after summary approval — context the schema alone does not tie together.

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 Engine Rebuild Cost') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also cross-references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 validates with answers + consent=true, step 2 is called 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token added. It states both the when (after approval) and the when-not (do not call step 2 without agreement), which is exactly the guidance needed for a multi-turn tool.

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