site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the operation is free. It also previews the return content (recipients of details, consent wording, confirmation flow). A read-only nature is only implied by 'Read first' rather than stated outright, which keeps this from 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first.' The high-value constraints (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free) are packed efficiently. The middle sentence is somewhat long and slightly tangled in its clause ordering, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full load, and it does: it explains the semantic outcome of the enquiry flow and previews what the tool returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). This is sufficient for an agent to know what calling it yields and why it matters before invoking submit_enquiry.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies and there is no parameter syntax for the description to compensate for. The description correctly adds no param detail because none exists.

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 makes clear this is a documentation-style tool that 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the EPOS retail system, distinguishing it from the action tool submit_enquiry. The pronoun 'it' in 'it starts an enquiry' is momentarily ambiguous between this tool and submit_enquiry, but the framing sentence resolves it. It is a clear verb+resource definition without needing to open any 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?

'Read first' gives an explicit ordering hint that this should be consulted before acting, and submit_enquiry is named as the related action. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. enquiry_fields, and no when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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 behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload shape (key, label, type, required, help text, options) plus how the result feeds submit_enquiry. It does not state read-only semantics, ordering, or any pagination/authorization traits, but for a zero-parameter listing tool the disclosure is solid.

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 sentences with zero filler; the return contents are front-loaded and the integration hint is placed last where it acts as a hand-off. Every clause earns its place.

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, so the description must explain the return values and it does so enumeratively. It is nearly complete for a zero-param read tool, missing only ordering/empty-result behavior and a clearer distinction from enquiry_describe.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description usefully clarifies the meaning of the field 'key' by noting answers should be keyed by it, which ties the output to the downstream call.

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 exactly what is returned: every field of the retail enquiry with key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. It is distinguishable from submit_enquiry by the final sentence, but it never clarifies its relationship to the sibling enquiry_describe, and the head noun phrase ('Every field of...') carries no explicit verb.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' signals this is a discovery step preceding submission, which is genuinely useful routing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use and no guidance on choosing this over the sibling enquiry_describe.

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: it discloses that step 1 is a validation pass returning a summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry only submits on step 2, that a confirmation email with a mandatory click gates provider visibility, and it spells out exactly what consent means. This is behavioral context an agent could not get 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?

Front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact (not a purchase) and the two steps are laid out in order with no filler sentences. It runs long, and the consent wording is quoted verbatim even though the consent parameter description already carries it, which is mild redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email/click step. For a two-phase, consent-gated submission tool with a nested answers object, nothing an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers must be "keyed by field key from enquiry_fields" (a cross-tool contract), consent=true is only valid after the person agrees, and confirmation is a step-2-only token. Some of this duplicates the schema descriptions, which keeps it from 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 EPOS system for retail") and immediately bounds it with two scope negations: "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." An agent can tell this is a write-like submission flow rather than a lookup, which is what the enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields siblings are.

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?

Explicitly sequences the call: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token, Step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the same answers plus the token. Both the when and the when-not (do not skip step 1) are stated, not inferred.

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