site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It makes clear this is an informational tool that describes behavior and returns specific details, implying no submission or side effect occurs. It also discloses what the returned content covers, which is useful beyond the tool name.

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 and front-loaded with the most important guidance: 'Read first.' Each sentence adds useful information about what the tool does, what it clarifies, and what it returns, with no 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?

For a simple informational tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, the key facts it communicates, and the content of its return value. The agent has everything needed to decide when and how to call it.

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 accepts zero parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is appropriately strong.

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 this tool explains what submit_enquiry does, naming the specific resource and the behavior it describes. It differentiates itself from the sibling tools by positioning itself as the 'Read first' companion to submit_enquiry.

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' explicitly tells the agent to use this tool before submit_enquiry, providing clear contextual guidance. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but in context the usage is unmistakable.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It clearly implies a read-only introspection operation returning field metadata, and it states the scope of the data returned. It does not mention authentication or side effects, but for a fields lookup this is not a significant gap.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core content is front-loaded, and the cross-tool guidance is kept to a single sentence.

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 absence of an output schema, the description provides a reasonable picture of the returned data and its intended use. It could be more explicit about the response structure, such as whether the result is a list or object, but the listed attributes and keying instruction cover the essential context.

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 input schema contains nothing that needs explanation. The description adds a useful convention by saying answers to submit_enquiry should be keyed by field key, which is helpful context even though it is not an input parameter of 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 names a specific resource: every field of the Event Hire Costs enquiry, and enumerates exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This makes the tool's purpose obvious and distinguishes it from submit_enquiry by clarifying that it provides the field keys used for submission.

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 clear workflow context by instructing agents to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but it explains enough about when and why to use this tool.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden and mostly discharges it: it discloses validation behavior, what is returned in step 1, the token gate in step 2, the email verification requirement, and the data-sharing scope (up to three firms who will contact the person directly, with per-firm notification and an opt-out). Reversibility and rate limits are unstated, but the operational sequence is 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 and logically ordered (disclaimer, step 1, step 2, consent meaning), but it reproduces the entire consent sentence verbatim even though the identical text is already in the consent parameter's schema description. That is a large block of duplicated content in a description that is otherwise dense.

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 cover returns, and it does: step 1 yields a summary, the consent line, and a confirmation token; step 2 yields submission plus a verification email. For a nested-object, two-phase, no-annotation tool, an agent has everything needed 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns a small premium by linking 'answers' to the sibling enquiry_fields tool ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields') and by clarifying that consent=true is required in BOTH calls, not just the first — details the schema alone does not convey.

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 (submit an enquiry to Event Hire Costs) and immediately scopes it against the most likely confusion: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step flow distinguishes it from the sibling describe/fields tools, which only supply field metadata.

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?

Explicit when-to-use for both steps: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token. It also spells out the precondition (consent means the person has read and agreed to the quoted text) and the post-condition (email link must be clicked before any provider sees it).

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