site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does well: it states the action is free, involves no purchase/order/payment, provides no guaranteed quote, and returns recipient/consent/confirmation details. It does not explicitly declare the tool itself as read-only, but the informational nature is strongly implied.

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 at three sentences and front-loads the 'Read first' instruction. Minor redundancy exists between the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote') and the description ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), but each sentence 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 zero-parameter, informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and what assumptions to avoid. It lacks an explicit statement of output format, but that is a minor gap given the low complexity and explanatory purpose.

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 with zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds useful context about what is returned, but no parameter-level documentation is needed; baseline 4 applies.

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 tool as an explanatory preamble to submit_enquiry: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and clarifies what is not happening ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid'). It distinguishes the describe action from the actual submission action, though it does not explicitly frame itself as 'describes the enquiry flow' beyond that.

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' gives a clear ordering cue to use this before submit_enquiry, and the title warns it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. However, it does not mention the sibling enquiry_fields or explain when to prefer this tool over that alternative, so usage guidance is partial rather than complete.

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 present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that the tool is a metadata lookup by describing the fields and by implying that submission happens through 'submit_enquiry', meaning this tool itself does not submit. It does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or response shape, but these are less critical for a zero-parameter read-only introspection tool.

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 carry the content and downstream usage with no filler. The description front-loads the resource and field-info list before the usage note, making it easy to scan.

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 no-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description sufficiently specifies the returned information and how it should be used. It might be clearer with an explicit output shape or a note distinguishing it from 'enquiry_describe', but nothing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema trivially covers 100% of parameters. With no parameters to document, the baseline is 4; the description's mention of 'key' and 'allowed options' helps contextualize the data consumers will need, but nothing more is required.

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 identifies the specific resource ('Fire Alarm Servicing Cost enquiry') and enumerates the field metadata ('key, label, type, whether required, help text...'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it uses the noun phrase 'Every field of...' rather than an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly distinguish the tool from the sibling '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 second sentence gives actionable guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent to use this tool to discover field keys before submitting. It does not mention 'enquiry_describe' or state when not to use the tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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 validation behavior, the exact step-1 return payload (summary, consent line, token), the required human interaction (show the summary and consent line), and the post-submit gate (email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry). It also spells out the consent semantics and the disclosure to up to three firms.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then the two steps in order. It is long, but most length is load-bearing workflow detail; the one inefficiency is the consent sentence reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent description.

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, nested-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: step sequencing, return contents, the human-approval requirement, and the downstream email-confirmation gate. 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 schema alone sets a baseline of 3. The description adds real value beyond it by tying each parameter to a workflow stage — answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true, and confirmation used only in step 2 — which the flat schema cannot express.

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 Fire Alarm Servicing Cost') and immediately bounds it with explicit negatives ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can distinguish it from the two helper 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate, step 2 only after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The condition that selects step 2 ('only if the person agrees') and the exclusion ('NOT a purchase') leave nothing to inference.

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