site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and largely meets it: it frames the tool as a read-first explainer and discloses return contents ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms'). It also clarifies the broader enquiry is free and non-binding, though this refers mainly to submit_enquiry's behavior rather than this tool's side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence contributes: purpose, non-commitment clarifications, and return content. No redundant or filler language.

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 simple 0-param informational tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the topic, what is not happening, and what is returned. It slightly under-specifies the output's format and does not position enquiry_fields relative to this tool, but these are minor for this low-complexity case.

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 already fully covers this with an empty properties object. Per the rubric baseline for 0-param tools, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail.

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 informational purpose: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on FORS Accreditation Cost' and lists what the user receives. It explicitly names the sibling submit_enquiry, so an agent can distinguish the describe step from the 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?

The opening imperative 'Read first' provides explicit sequencing guidance, telling the agent to invoke this before submit_enquiry. It names submit_enquiry as the subject, but it does not address enquiry_fields or give a when-not-to-use condition.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It usefully specifies the fields returned and the conditional nature of options, but it never explicitly states that this is a read-only metadata retrieval or describes the output shape/container. It is adequate but not fully transparent.

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, and the most important information is front-loaded. The first sentence defines the scope and contents, and the second gives immediate actionable guidance about submitting answers.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description does a good job of covering what fields the agent will see and how to connect them to submit_enquiry. It still leaves minor gaps such as the exact return container/format and how enquiry_describe relates, but for a zero-parameter metadata tool it is largely complete.

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 nothing the description must explain about inputs. The mention of 'keyed by field key' adds useful cross-tool semantics for submit_enquiry, though it is about the output rather than this tool's 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 clearly identifies the resource: every field of the FORS Accreditation Cost enquiry, and enumerates what is included (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry but not from 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 implies when this is useful by saying 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', which tells the agent how the output connects to a sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over enquiry_describe or provide any exclusion criteria.

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 the validation-then-submit flow, the returned summary/consent line/token, and the post-submission email-verification gate before any provider sees the data. The exact scope of consent (up to three consultants, right to stop) is spelled out, which is critical for a tool that shares personal data.

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?

Purpose and the 'not a purchase' disclaimer are front-loaded, and the two steps are clearly enumerated with no filler. The one waste is quoting the full consent sentence, which already appears verbatim in the consent parameter description.

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 two-step, nested-object, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: prerequisites, step ordering, human-approval gate, what each call returns, and the downstream email-verification consequence. Nothing required to invoke it 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 adds sequencing semantics the schema cannot convey, namely that 'answers' are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and may only be supplied after human approval. The verbatim repetition of the consent text adds no meaning beyond the schema's identical consent 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 FORS Accreditation Cost) and immediately distinguishes itself from adjacent concepts with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys, so an agent can tell it apart from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without opening any 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: call once with answers and consent=true to validate, then call again only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. It states the precondition for each step and the gate (human agreement) rather than leaving sequencing to inference.

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