site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and what supplementary facts it returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation). It omits how the returned information is structured, but for a read-only explainer this is strong disclosure.

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?

Sentences are front-loaded with the directive 'Read first.' and each clause adds a distinct fact (what it describes, the no-purchase/guarantee/free qualifiers, the extra returned context). Slightly dense with stacked clauses, but no meaningful waste.

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, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description supplies the behavioral guardrails and enumerates the returned context an agent would otherwise lack. Only the exact return structure is unstated, which is minor here.

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 no parameter semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly adds no redundant parameter talk.

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 clear purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does, including the non-purchase, non-guaranteed-quote nature of an enquiry, and lists the extra context it returns (recipient, consent wording, confirmation). It names and explains the sibling action tool submit_enquiry, so the agent can distinguish the descriptive tool from the action tool. It does not draw a line against enquiry_fields, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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 explicit ordering guidance that routes the agent to call this before submit_enquiry. It establishes the context clearly but offers no explicit when-not or comparison against enquiry_fields.

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. It does disclose the returned content (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether the field set is static or configurable, or any auth/rate constraints.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one actionable instruction about keying answers to submit_enquiry. Every clause earns its place and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so by listing every field attribute an agent needs to build a submission. For a zero-parameter, no-annotation tool this is close to sufficient, though it could note that the field set is authoritative for submit_enquiry.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there are none to describe.

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 specific resource it returns — every field of the Google reviews calculator enquiry, enumerated as key/label/type/required/help text/options. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns', 'lists'), but the noun phrase is precise enough that an agent knows this is a field-metadata lookup rather than a submit 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 second sentence implies the workflow — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which tells the agent this precedes submit_enquiry. However it never states when to call this versus the sibling enquiry_describe, and there is no explicit ordering or prerequisite statement.

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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that the call is a mutation (submission), that it is two-phase with a validation pass before commitment, that a confirmation token gates the second call, that consent has a specific legal meaning, and that an email link must be clicked before providers see anything. These are exactly the side-effect and authorization facts an agent needs.

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 caveat are front-loaded, then the two steps follow in execution order, which matches how an agent must call it. It is long and somewhat run-on, but nearly every clause carries operational information; only the final restatement of the consent text duplicates the schema wording.

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 three-parameter mutating tool with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value expectations (summary, consent line, confirmation token) plus the consent semantics and post-submission email flow. An agent has everything needed to execute both steps correctly without guessing.

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: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent corresponds to a quoted consent sentence, and that confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and used only after approval. The one gap is the accepted value types for answers, which the schema already covers.

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 reviews calculator") and immediately negates two common misreadings ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). An agent can distinguish this from the read-only helper siblings 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 explicit, ordered conditions for each call: step 1 with answers + consent=true, and step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the returned token. It also states the precondition that no provider sees the enquiry until the person clicks the emailed link, so the agent knows not to treat step 2 as the final human-visible action.

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