site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is unusually transparent: it states the tool returns an explanation of submit_enquiry, discloses what is not guaranteed or paid, and lists the specific information returned (recipient, consent wording, confirmation method). It also prevents confusion with a purchase by explicit negation.

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 three sentences and every sentence adds value: the 'Read first' instruction, a plain-language definition of the enquiry, and a summary of the returned information. The title repeats the non-purchase framing, reinforcing rather than wasting space.

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 explanatory tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it defines the tool's purpose, clarifies what it is not, and enumerates the content an agent can expect back. The only possible gap, a pointer to enquiry_fields, is not necessary for correctly invoking this 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 parameter-level documentation is unnecessary; the description focuses on behavior and returned content rather than inputs. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool is appropriate, and no input semantics are missing.

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 a plain-language explanation of what submit_enquiry does, with the 'Read first' instruction and title emphasizing it is not the submission action itself. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being descriptive rather than performative, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the enquiry_fields sibling.

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' provides an explicit signal to use this tool before calling submit_enquiry, and the description explains the practical meaning of what an enquiry is (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free). It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not state exclusions or when enquiry_fields would be the better choice.

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 it does well by specifying every piece of returned field data and the conditional nature of allowed options. It also reveals that the returned keys are the exact keys expected by submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state whether the call is read-only or describe the response container.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the first defines the output surface and the second connects it to the submitting workflow. The important resource name appears first.

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 no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return information and the intended follow-up call. It would be more complete if it stated the output container (e.g., list/object) and where enquiry_describe fits, since siblings are present.

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 input parameters, so the schema already covers everything and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful downstream context about how returned keys map to submit_enquiry, but no parameter semantics for this tool need explaining.

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 identifies the specific resource ('EPC Upgrade Cost enquiry') and the returned contents ('key, label, type, whether required, help text, allowed options'), so an agent can tell it exposes the field schema. It does not use an explicit retrieval verb and does not contrast with enquiry_describe, which prevents full sibling differentiation.

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 second sentence gives a clear workflow: retrieve this field schema, then 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent when the tool is needed, but it does not mention when to prefer enquiry_describe or provide exclusions.

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 delivers: validation behavior on step 1, exactly what is returned (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the human-in-the-loop requirement to show those, and the post-submission email/link gate that prevents providers from seeing the enquiry until clicked. It also spells out the consent scope (up to three assessors, per-firm notification, ability to stop).

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 critical negation before the procedural detail, and the step sequencing is easy to follow. The main inefficiency is the consent sentence quoted in full, which duplicates the consent parameter's schema description verbatim rather than pointing at it.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing both return values of step 1 and the downstream email confirmation flow. For a nested-object, two-phase tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly appears to be 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: 'answers' must be keyed by field key drawn from enquiry_fields, 'consent=true' is required on both calls, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token supplied only after approval — clarifying provenance and ordering the schema does not.

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 EPC Upgrade Cost') and immediately negates the most likely misinterpretation ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which are clearly lookup helpers.

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 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees') is stated, and the dependency on enquiry_fields for the answer keys is cross-referenced.

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