site

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond a generic 'describes' statement by disclosing that no purchase, order, or payment occurs, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and by listing what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and the confirmation method.

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 four short sentences and front-loads the most important instruction ('Read first') before explaining scope and return contents. Each sentence earns its place: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns.

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 no-input, no-output-schema meta-description tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: the context (Forklift Training Quotes), the behavior being explained, the exclusions, and the specific contents of the return value. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 has zero properties, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description correctly avoids inventing parameter information where none exists.

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: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Forklift Training Quotes, and immediately contrasts that with what it does not do ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling action tool submit_enquiry and from enquiry_fields without needing to inspect schemas.

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 opening directive 'Read first' explicitly tells the agent when this tool should be used: before acting on submit_enquiry. It also clarifies the scope and exclusions of the described behavior, which helps the agent decide between this explanation tool and the actual submission tool. It does not explicitly name enquiry_fields as an alternative, so it falls just short of fully explicit when/when-not 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what data the tool returns (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and implies a read-only metadata operation by directing actual submission to submit_enquiry. It stops short of explicitly stating 'read-only' or describing output formatting.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The primary content (field metadata) is front-loaded, and the usage direction is placed second. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 metadata retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete: it defines the output and the follow-up workflow. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that calling this tool has no side effects or by distinguishing itself from enquiry_describe, but these are minor gaps.

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 useful semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use when passing answers to submit_enquiry, which clarifies the relationship between this tool and the submission tool.

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 ('Every field of the Forklift Training Quotes enquiry') and enumerates what is returned, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get'. The title 'The questions the enquiry asks' partially compensates, and the reference to submit_enquiry helps distinguish it from that sibling.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent how to use the result and names one sibling. However, it does not mention enquiry_describe or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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 that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), that step 2 triggers an email with a link the person must click before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three providers with opt-out rights. That is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating state.

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 the crucial scope caveat and cleanly structured as Step 1 / Step 2. It is slightly long, largely because the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is mild redundancy though defensible since the agent must display it.

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 exists, and the description compensates by describing both the step-1 return payload and the step-2 downstream outcome (email plus click-through gate). Nothing needed to invoke either step 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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 after approval, which is not stated in the schema field description.

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 Forklift Training Quotes') and immediately delimits scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also cross-references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can place it among its siblings without opening a schema.

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 with the exact condition for each call: step 1 with answers plus consent=true, step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. The when-not condition is stated, not implied.

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