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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that step 1 is non-final and only validates, that step 2 actually submits, that the person receives an email link they must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent. This gives an agent an accurate model of the tool's side effects and sequencing.

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 part earns its place given the two-step workflow and safety-critical consent requirement. It is front-loaded with the key caveat ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and uses clear step labels. The consent quote is somewhat redundant with the schema, but repeating it is justified for a consent-dependent action.

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 submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete. It explains what step 1 returns, what step 2 does, the email-link prerequisite, and where answer keys come from. An agent has enough context to invoke both steps correctly without consulting additional tool definitions.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful sequencing context: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, the confirmation token must come from step 1, and the same answers plus consent=true are reused in step 2. This slightly exceeds what the schema alone states, justifying a 4.

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 FORS Accreditation Cost'. It also explicitly excludes what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which distinguishes it clearly from any purchase-like action and from the sibling tools enquiry_describe 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 description gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line, and confirmation token; step 2 is only to be called after the person agrees, using the same answers and token. This is direct, actionable guidance on when and how to invoke the tool versus waiting for user confirmation.

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