site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and what information is returned. This gives an agent an accurate model of the tool's non-transactional, informational behavior.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the most important guidance ('Read first') and then delivers key behavioral facts and return-value details in a compact, well-ordered way.

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 is complete: it states what the tool does, what it does not do, and exactly what it returns (recipients of details, consent wording, confirmation method). An agent has enough to use and interpret 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema information needing elaboration. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return content rather than inventing parameter details.

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 title and description clearly state that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does, rather than being a purchase or guaranteed quote. It names the specific resource (Forklift Servicing Cost enquiry) and the sibling tool (submit_enquiry), so an agent can distinguish it from the actual submission action.

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' is explicit guidance to consult this tool before taking action, and the description frames it as a prerequisite for understanding submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the intended sequence and informational purpose are clear.

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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the returned data composition and implicitly marks the tool as an informational lookup by separating it from submission ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry'). It does not state read-only status or output format explicitly, but the content list is sufficient for a zero-parameter fields 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?

The entire definition is one compact sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists the data elements and the linkage to submit_enquiry. Every part earns its place, with no filler or 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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains what the caller will receive (field metadata) and how to use it (keying submit_enquiry answers by field key). No critical information needed to invoke or interpret the result 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 baseline is 4. The description adds the useful semantic that answers should be keyed by field key when passed to submit_enquiry, which clarifies the meaning and purpose of the returned keys beyond the empty schema.

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?

Description names a specific resource ('every field of the Forklift Servicing Cost enquiry') and specifies exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not distinguish from sibling enquiry_describe, but the resource is clear enough for an agent.

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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives clear practical context for how to use the returned field keys, tying the tool to its sibling submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention enquiry_describe, but the usage direction is unambiguous.

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 full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool validates, returns a summary and confirmation token, requires a second confirmation call, and sends an email with a link the person must click before providers see the enquiry. It also defines exactly what consent means, quoting the consent line verbatim.

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 front-loaded with the most important caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then lays out the two-step flow in a dense but organized way. Every sentence adds operational value, and the consent requirement is repeated only where it directly affects behavior.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the return artifacts of step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the required condition for step 2 (person agrees), and the post-submission behavior (email link click before provider visibility). Nothing an agent needs to execute the flow 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person has read the quoted consent line, and the confirmation parameter comes from step 1 after the person approves the summary. This gives the agent practical context for all three parameters.

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 verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Forklift Servicing Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is not: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes the tool from other actions and from potentially related purchase/quote flows.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: first call with answers and consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It also conveys when-not to use the tool with the 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' caveat. The reference to 'field key from enquiry_fields' implicitly routes the agent to the sibling tool for valid answer keys.

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