site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add meaningful context: no purchase/payment, no guaranteed quote, free, and it returns recipient/consent/confirmation details. However, it never explicitly states that enquiry_describe itself is read-only and has no submission side effects; that must be inferred from the tool name and the 'Read first' instruction.

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 and front-loaded with the crucial 'Read first' instruction, and each subsequent clause adds a distinct fact. Minor redundancy with the title—not a purchase, no guaranteed quote—prevents a top score.

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, it is reasonably complete: it explains what submit_enquiry does, what it does not do, and what information the description returns. It does not specify output format, but the absence of an output schema and the low complexity make this a minor gap.

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 trivially complete, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details where none exist.

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 that this tool states what submit_enquiry does, distinguishing it from the actual submission action. It is somewhat indirect about its own operation—using 'States plainly' and 'Also returns' rather than an explicit 'This tool returns'—but the purpose is recoverable and not misleading.

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 an explicit temporal cue: invoke this before submit_enquiry. This is clear usage context, but it does not contrast with enquiry_fields or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full alternative 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?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what fields are included and qualifies options with 'where there are any', giving a good sense of the return content. However, it never explicitly says the tool is read-only or what the output shape looks like beyond the attribute list.

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, no filler. The description front-loads the resource and then immediately lists the useful attributes and the relationship to submit_enquiry.

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, simple introspection tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies exactly what data will be returned and how that data is meant to be used with the sibling submit_enquiry 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 takes zero parameters, so the schema and description have no parameter semantics to document; the 0-param baseline is 4. The sentence about passing answers keyed by field key is not parameter documentation for this tool, but it does contextualize the returned keys.

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 resource as 'Every field of the Forklift Course Finder enquiry' and enumerates the returned attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not contrast with the sibling enquiry_describe, so it falls short of a 5.

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 clear context by telling the agent that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_describe instead, so it lacks the explicit exclusion needed for a 5.

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 present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the validation step, the consent wording, the confirmation-token requirement, the email dispatch, and the critical condition that providers see the enquiry only after the person clicks the emailed link.

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 long but every clause earns its place; the two-step consent flow and email-link behavior genuinely require this much detail. Key constraints are front-loaded at the start, and the wording is structured around Step 1 and Step 2 for easy parsing.

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 stateful two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is unusually complete. It explains the sequence, expected intermediate artifacts (summary, consent line, token), the consent condition, and the post-submission email-link requirement, leaving an agent with enough context to invoke both steps 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% and the schema already includes useful descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying each parameter to its step in the workflow ('same answers, consent=true and confirmation token'), clarifying the token's origin and the requirement to reuse the same answers.

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 Forklift Course Finder') and immediately distinguishes the action with explicit negative scope: NOT a purchase and NOT a guaranteed quote. It also names the two-step flow and references enquiry_fields, making it clearly distinct from the sibling enquiry tools.

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 precise when-to-use workflow: first call with answers and consent=true to obtain a summary/token, then a second call only if the person approves. It also says when not to use the tool ('not a purchase') and points to enquiry_fields for the correct answer keys.

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