site

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It explains this is a descriptive tool, not a transaction: 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state 'this tool performs no submission,' but the framing makes that clear.

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 'Read first.' Each sentence earns its place: what the tool does, what it does not do, cost, and return content. The title also reinforces the core distinction from a purchase or quote.

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 explanatory tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent when to use it, what behavior to expect, and what information the response will contain. No critical operational detail 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and the description appropriately does not invent any. No additional semantic burden 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 precisely what the tool does: it is an explanatory tool that 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' in the context of Gallbladder Surgery Cost. It clearly differentiates itself from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry and the field-oriented enquiry_fields by being the 'Read first' reference.

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 'Read first' is explicit usage guidance, signaling the agent to consult this tool before performing an enquiry. It also clarifies the non-purchase/non-guaranteed-quote context, which helps the agent decide when an enquiry is appropriate. It does not explicitly name when to prefer enquiry_fields, but the ordering and 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes clear the tool exposes field metadata rather than performing a mutation, and it notes that allowed options are included only where they exist. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, describe response wrapping, or mention any constraints, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loaded sentences: the first states exactly what the tool returns, and the second gives actionable cross-tool guidance. There is no filler, repetition, or restating of the name.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the essential response contents and ties them to the sibling submit_enquiry. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool 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 input schema has zero properties, and the description correctly reflects that the tool takes no parameters. The added guidance about keying answers by field key clarifies how the returned keys are meant to be used with submit_enquiry, adding value 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?

The description identifies the resource clearly: every field of the Gallbladder Surgery Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the content and the reference to submit_enquiry make the purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from its siblings.

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 concrete cross-tool guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells an agent why to call this tool and how to use its result. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of 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, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose a great deal: the two-call protocol, the token round-trip, the double-opt-in email whose link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, the cap of three hospitals/clinics, and the opt-out right. However, it never states permissions/auth requirements, rate limits, whether a step-1 call has side effects, or what happens if the token expires or is reused — meaningful gaps for a contact-detail-sharing mutation 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?

Front-loaded with the strongest disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') and organized as Step 1 / Step 2, which matches the call sequence. It loses a point because the full consent sentence is quoted nearly verbatim from the schema's consent description, adding length without new information.

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 what step 1 returns (a summary, the consent line, a confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a required click, then provider visibility). For a nested-object, two-phase tool this covers everything an agent needs to call it 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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes beyond the schema by explaining that answers are keyed by the field key from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and only applies on the second call. This sequencing context is not inferable from the flat property definitions.

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 Gallbladder Surgery Cost') and immediately delineates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The reference to enquiry_fields ties it to a named sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe and 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: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition for the second call is stated verbatim, leaving nothing to inference.

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