site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the tool is free. It also says what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation), covering both safety and output 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 front-loaded with "Read first" and uses short, direct sentences. It is slightly repetitive with "Nothing is bought, ordered or paid" and "no quote is guaranteed", but each clause adds useful clarity.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining the tool's purpose, safety profile, and return contents. It could go further by relating itself to enquiry_fields, but it is largely complete for a simple descriptive tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 states it explains what submit_enquiry does, with a specific verb (states plainly) and resource (the enquiry process). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the read-first description, but does not mention the other sibling 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?

"Read first" gives a clear ordering instruction, implying this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternative breakdown.

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 supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully describes the shape of the returned payload, which substitutes for the absent output schema, but it never states that the operation is read-only, side-effect free, or cheap to call repeatedly.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The content of the returned fields is front-loaded, and the actionable submission hint follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned field attributes, so an agent knows what to expect. The one omission is routing clarity versus enquiry_describe, which matters given three closely related siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The mention of "keyed by field key" adds a useful hint about how the returned keys are consumed downstream.

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 names the concrete resource (every field of the Birmingham agency enquiry) and enumerates the metadata returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which plausibly covers similar ground.

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?

"Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key" establishes the downstream workflow and implies this is the discovery step before submission. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to enquiry_describe, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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: it discloses the two-call protocol, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what step 2 triggers (submission plus a verification email the person must click before any provider sees the enquiry), and the exact consent wording. This is unusually rich side-effect and state disclosure for a 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?

The single paragraph is long but front-loaded with the critical 'NOT a purchase' qualifier and segmented into Step 1/Step 2, so it scans well. The verbatim consent sentence is necessary but adds length; a small amount of tightening is possible.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing both return points: the step-1 validation output (summary, consent line, token) and the step-2 outcome (submitted enquiry plus the recipient's verification email). Nothing needed 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 the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by tying each parameter to the two-step flow — answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both calls, and confirmation is only supplied on the second call after approval. It adds sequencing meaning the schema alone does not make explicit.

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 Google Ads agency Birmingham') and immediately sets scope boundaries ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also names the sibling 'enquiry_fields' as the source of the answer keys, letting an agent distinguish it 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, ordered when-to-use: Step 1 with answers+consent to validate, Step 2 only after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the token. It also states when-not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote) and what must be true before proceeding (consent).

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