site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral facts — the enquiry is free, nothing is bought or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the tool returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. However, it never states its own side-effect profile (read-only, purely informational), and slightly conflates the describe-tool's output with the behavior of the tool it describes.

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?

Roughly sixty words with a front-loaded directive ('Read first'), a clear purpose statement, an exclusion list, and an output summary. Every sentence earns its place. Minor deduction: the title is a full sentence rather than a compact label, which adds slight 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 0-param informational tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent receives. But it never connects the tool to its siblings — it doesn't say what to do after reading (call submit_enquiry?) or how this relates to enquiry_fields — leaving the workflow context implied rather than explicit.

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 an empty schema, so there is no parameter documentation burden. Per baseline, a 0-param tool warrants a 4, and the description correctly spends no space on inputs.

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 a specific action — it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' — and names the subject resource explicitly. The title reinforces the semantic scope ('an ENQUIRY with a human, not a purchase'). It clearly sits apart from submit_enquiry (which performs the action) but never explicitly differentiates from 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 opening directive 'Read first' implies the tool should be invoked before acting, giving the agent a sense of when in a workflow to use it. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus enquiry_fields or submit_enquiry, and there are no exclusion statements ('do not use when...'). Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires any authorization. It only describes the content of the response, not the behavior or safety profile. This is a gap for a tool that is likely a data retrieval, but the description does not confirm that.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence enumerates the exact attributes returned, and the second sentence explains the relationship to submit_enquiry. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps additional guidance to one essential 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is returned (field attributes) and how to use it (keyed for submit_enquiry). It does not mention return format or error conditions, but for a simple listing tool that is probably acceptable. However, the presence of a sibling tool enquiry_describe is not addressed, which could leave ambiguity about when to use this tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its 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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. Per the baseline for tools with zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The description does not add parameter semantics, but that is not required here.

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 explicitly states that this tool returns every field of the enquiry with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It clearly names the resource (the enquiry fields) and the action (listing them), and also references how to use the output with submit_enquiry, distinguishing it from that sibling. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 provides context on how to use the results with submit_enquiry ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling enquiry_describe. There is no exclusion or comparison, so an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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 the validate-and-return behavior, the confirmation token mechanism, that submission triggers an email with a required click-through before providers see anything, and the exact consent semantics. These are meaningful behavioral facts an agent cannot get from the schema alone.

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 core purpose and the not-a-purchase disclaimer, then walks the two steps in order. It is long, but the length is driven by necessary behavioral detail and the verbatim consent text; almost 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?

For a two-phase mutation tool with no output schema and a nested answers object, the description is complete: it explains what step 1 returns, what step 2 does, the email confirmation gate, and the consent meaning. Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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 workflow meaning by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and by mapping each parameter to its step (consent=true both times, confirmation only in step 2). That is genuine added value beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 Find A Co-Packer') and immediately disambiguates from adjacent concepts by ruling out 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools without opening 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: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The precondition for the second call is stated unambiguously, leaving nothing to inference.

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