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 openly discloses the key behavioral boundaries of the workflow it describes: 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses the return contents: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. This makes the tool's informational, non-side-effecting nature clear.

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 three sentences and every sentence earns its place: the 'Read first' instruction, the plain statement of what submit_enquiry does, the negations that prevent misuse, and the return summary. It is front-loaded and free of filler.

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, this description is complete. It gives the tool's purpose, the scope of the underlying operation, the cost/commitment boundaries, and what the tool returns. An agent has enough to use it correctly and avoid confusing it with submit_enquiry.

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 schema coverage is effectively 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not waste space inventing parameter documentation.

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 states the tool's purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Fire Risk Quotes' and clarifies that it is a descriptive pre-read rather than the submission action itself. It also distinguishes itself by naming the exact tool it explains (submit_enquiry) and listing what it returns, so an agent can tell it apart from submit_enquiry and 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 phrase 'Read first' gives an explicit, front-loaded usage instruction: consult this tool before using submit_enquiry. The description also provides helpful context about what the underlying flow does and does not do. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the 'Read first' cue is clear enough for the intended pre-read role.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by enumerating exactly what information each field includes and noting that allowed options appear only where they exist. This gives a clear picture of the tool's output without hiding surprises.

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 states what the tool returns with a detailed attribute list; the second immediately tells the agent how to connect the result to submit_enquiry. Every 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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what the tool returns, which attributes are included, and how the results should be used. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and use this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter ambiguity. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, but with no parameters to document, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 states the tool returns every field of the Fire Risk Quotes enquiry, with a concrete list of attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This makes its purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_enquiry and 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 provides useful usage context by explaining that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells the agent how to consume the output. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate situation.

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 behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers an email with a link the person must click before any provider sees their details, and that providers are human third parties who contact the person directly. Side effects (details sent to up to three assessors, contact by those firms, ability to stop) are fully surfaced.

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 two-step sequence is front-loaded and the flow is easy to follow, but the verbatim consent sentence is reproduced from the schema's consent parameter description, adding substantial length without new information. The core instructions could be tighter without losing precision.

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 returns — and it does, naming the summary, the consent line, and the confirmation token. For a stateful, two-phase, high-consequence submission with no annotations, it covers everything an agent needs to act 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: "answers" are keyed by field key obtained from the sibling tool enquiry_fields, and "confirmation" is the token returned by step 1 after human approval. It clarifies sequencing semantics that the schema alone implies but does not state.

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 verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Fire Risk Quotes") and immediately disambiguates it from adjacent concepts ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). The two-step structure is stated up front, so an agent understands the tool is invoked potentially twice with different arguments.

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 gives explicit conditions for each call: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gate ("only if the person agrees") and the required order of operations are unambiguous, 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.