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 thoroughly: it discloses validation, the intermediate summary/consent/token, the need for a second call, the email link requirement, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks. It even supplies the exact consent wording.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: scope disclaimer, step sequencing, and consent wording are all necessary. Key warnings (NOT a purchase) are front-loaded.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description explains the return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the two-step invocation, and the post-submission email/click behavior. An agent has everything needed to call the 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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds meaning: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must match the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation is the step-1 token returned only after approval. This clarifies how the parameters interact across the two calls.

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 Risk Quotes, and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is named in the title and description, making the tool's unique role clear relative to enquiry_describe/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?

Provides an explicit step-by-step protocol: call once with answers plus consent=true to validate and get a confirmation token, then only call again with the token if the person agrees. It also states when not to use it (not a purchase/quote) and references enquiry_fields for the answer keys.

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