site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it states nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; and it is free. It also discloses what the tool returns—recipients, consent wording, and confirmation flow—giving the agent a realistic model of the interaction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: usage ('Read first'), purpose, non-transaction guarantees, and return contents. The description is short, front-loaded, and avoids repeating anything already available in structured form.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will learn, what will and won't happen, and what the output covers. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit relationship to enquiry_fields, but that does not block correct invocation.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing 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 names a specific action ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') and a resource ('Executive Search Fees'), making clear this is the informational preamble to submit_enquiry. It distinguishes from submit_enquiry by being the explainer rather than the action, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields.

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' directly tells the agent to consult this before proceeding, and the description frames it as the explanation of submit_enquiry. It gives clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare against enquiry_fields.

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 disclosure burden. It does disclose what the response contains (field metadata), which is the tool's core behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, though the nature of a zero-parameter introspection tool makes this low-risk. Acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output content; the second earns its place by connecting the result to the sibling submit_enquiry. Every word adds value.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what is returned (field metadata attributes) and how to use it (submit keyed by field key). Minor omissions like the exact response format (list vs. object) are not critical given the low complexity.

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 is 4. The empty schema already communicates this, and the description contains nothing misleading about inputs. There is no param information to add, and none is needed.

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 resource ('every field of the Executive Search Fees enquiry') and enumerates precisely what is returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. The verb is implicit rather than explicit ('returns'/'lists'), but the intent is unambiguous. The closing reference to submit_enquiry helps distinguish this introspection tool from its siblings.

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 instruction to 'pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives the agent clear guidance on how to consume the output and implies this tool should be used before submitting an enquiry. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance, and the boundary with enquiry_describe is never addressed.

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 validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double-submission requirement, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data. It stops short of error/failure behavior and auth prerequisites, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 step sequence is front-loaded and each clause is actionable, but the long consent paragraph is reproduced nearly verbatim from the `consent` property description, which is redundant repetition rather than added value for a reader who already has the schema.

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 describe return values — and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token) along with the post-submission email-verification flow. Combined with the two-step protocol and consent semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by tying `answers` to the keys produced by enquiry_fields and by framing `confirmation` as the step-1 token that only applies on the second call. That usage context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Submits an enquiry to Executive Search Fees") and immediately scopes it with two explicit non-goals ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). It also names the sibling that supplies the input shape ("keyed by field key from enquiry_fields"), so an agent can place the tool without opening other schemas.

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 lays out an explicit two-step procedure with the condition that gates step 2 ("only if the person agrees"), telling the agent exactly when to make each call and what to show the user in between. Nothing about when to invoke this versus its siblings is left to inference beyond the field-source reference.

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