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 to lean on, the description fully discloses behavior: two-step validation, confirmation token, email sent only after second call, and the requirement that the person click a link before any provider sees it. It also spells out the exact consent wording, leaving no ambiguity about side effects or preconditions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions, followed by tightly organized step-by-step instructions and the consent line. Every sentence earns its place; the repetition of 'NOT a purchase' reinforces a key distinction without becoming bloated.

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-step mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what each step does, what the first step returns, what to show the user, what to do on the second call, and the subsequent email/link flow. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool 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, and the description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explains that 'answers' are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true, and that 'confirmation' is required on the second call. This extra usage detail meaningfully augments the parameter docs.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Exhibition Stand Cost') and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly defines the two-step submission process, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools that describe or list 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?

The description gives explicit step-by-step instructions for when to call the tool (step 1 for validation, step 2 for actual submission once the person agrees). It implicitly references enquiry_fields by instructing answers to be keyed by field keys, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings or state when not to use it.

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