site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the flow is free. It also lists what the tool returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly say that this description tool itself has no side effects, but that is reasonably inferred.

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: it front-loads the imperative 'Read first', then gives essential facts in short sentences. Every sentence adds value: what the tool states, what is not guaranteed, and what information it returns. No filler or 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the non-commitment nature, and the return contents. An agent can correctly understand what the tool does and what the user will see without additional 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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so schema description coverage is 100%. The baseline is 4 because there is nothing for the description to add about parameters.

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 uses a specific verb, 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does', and identifies the resource and context: an enquiry on Exhibition Stand Cost. The title reinforces that this is informational. It does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_fields, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation mark.

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' is explicit positioning before calling submit_enquiry, and the description makes clear that this tool is for understanding the process. It does not mention when to use enquiry_fields instead, so while the usage context is clear, exclusions and alternatives are not fully 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the kind of information returned and the keying convention for submission, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only introspection tool, describe the exact output shape, or mention any error or empty-result behavior. Still, for a simple no-parameter metadata query, the disclosed behavior is reasonably adequate.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a practical pointer to submit_enquiry. Every part earns its place, and the key content is front-loaded before the usage note.

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 value, and it does by listing all the field attributes and noting where options are allowed. It also explains how to use the results with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about the overall return shape, but the information is sufficient for a no-parameter metadata 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, and the description adds no parameter details because none are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description even connects the resulting field keys to another tool's parameter expectations.

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 what the tool provides: every field of the Exhibition Stand Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be passed there keyed by field key, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_describe.

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 a clear usage context: retrieve field definitions, then pass answers to submit_enquiry using the field keys. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, but the relationship to submit_enquiry provides enough practical guidance.

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 the validation behaviour of step 1, the exact return payload (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the gating email-verification step, and the downstream data-sharing consequences (contact details to up to three firms, notification per firm, opt-out). This is far more than a restatement of the 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?

Front-loaded with the critical disclaimers and the two-step flow, so the agent gets the essentials immediately. It loses a point for repeating the full verbatim consent string, which already appears in the schema's consent description, making the block longer than strictly necessary.

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 two-phase, consent-gated, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle: validation, token issuance, user confirmation, submission, and email verification. Nothing an agent needs to drive either call 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 the schema lacks: answers are keyed by field key obtained from the enquiry_fields tool, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and is required only on the second call. That sequencing is not encoded in the schema.

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 Exhibition Stand Cost') and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also cross-references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so an agent can place this tool relative to its siblings without opening their 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the exact conditions: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also states the pre-condition that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, which governs what the agent should tell the user.

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