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 disclose meaningful non-obvious behavior: the action is free, nothing is bought or paid, and no quote is guaranteed. It also previews the returned content (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method). It stops short of stating explicitly that the tool itself is read-only and non-mutating.

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?

'Read first' is well front-loaded, but the body is a single sprawling sentence and the no-cost point is stated three times (title 'not a purchase', 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid', 'it is free'), which is redundant rather than tight.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent will receive (who gets the details, consent wording, confirmation flow) and the key expectation (no purchase, no guaranteed quote). Little 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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is definitionally complete and the baseline is 4. There is nothing parameter-related for the description to add or omit.

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 makes clear this is a read-only informational tool that explains what submitting an enquiry entails, and its title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote') sharpens the contrast with submit_enquiry. It is slightly indirect because it defines itself by describing another tool's behavior rather than stating its own output up front.

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' implies the intended ordering relative to submit_enquiry, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus enquiry_fields, and gives no explicit when-not conditions.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does describe the returned shape (per-field key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options). It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect free or whether it requires auth, but for a zero-parameter metadata lookup that omission is minor.

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. The inventory of returned attributes comes first and the routing hint to submit_enquiry second, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool the description adequately covers what comes back and how to use it downstream. It stops short of noting whether the field list is static or can change, or how conditional fields (options) interact with submission.

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 the baseline is 4. The description usefully adds that returned field keys are the same keys expected by submit_enquiry, which is the only parameter-relevant information that could exist here.

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 resource — the fields of the Google Ads consultant enquiry — and enumerates what each field carries (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It also names the sibling submit_enquiry as the consumer of the output, which helps an agent place it in the workflow, though it never contrasts itself with 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?

"Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key" gives clear downstream context and implies this tool is the schema-discovery step before submitting. However, it never states when to prefer it over the sibling enquiry_describe, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 step 1 only validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that the enquiry is not visible until the person clicks an emailed link, and exactly what consent attests to. This is well beyond what any structured field provides.

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 critical constraint and two-step structure are front-loaded in the first two sentences. It is dense and the verbatim quoted consent sentence is long, but that text is functionally necessary rather than filler.

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-phase, consent-gated submission flow with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers triggering conditions, step sequencing, downstream email verification, and consent semantics. Nothing an agent needs 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, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it ties 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields, explains that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 after approval, and clarifies consent is a user attestation, not a technical flag.

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 ('Submits an enquiry to Google Ads consultant') and immediately bounds the scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling tool (enquiry_fields) that supplies the answer keys, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening 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?

It gives explicit branching guidance: Step 1 is called with answers and consent=true to validate, Step 2 is called 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. The prerequisite for moving between steps and the required user interaction ('show the person the summary and the consent line') are all spelled out.

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