site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It states what the tool returns, key behavioral traits of the underlying enquiry process, and critical caveats: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the enquiry is free.

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, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence adds information. It covers purpose, behavioral caveats, and return value without filler or repetition.

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 documentation tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the important restrictions around the enquiry process, leaving no critical ambiguity for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing regarding 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 title and description make the purpose unmistakable: this tool describes what submit_enquiry does rather than performing the action. It uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and resource ('submit_enquiry on Grain Storage Costs'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the actual submit operation with anti-confusion language like 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote.'

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 opens with 'Read first,' which is an explicit signal that this tool should be consulted before acting on submit_enquiry. It establishes the context for use, though it does not explicitly contrast this tool with enquiry_fields or list exclusions such as 'do not use this to submit an enquiry.'

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 well: it discloses the exact shape of the response (key, label, type, required flag, help text, options). It does not mention error behavior or whether results are cached/static, which keeps it from a 5, but this is clearly a safe read of a form definition.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by how to use it. Minor waste from the fragment 'With form, the questions of that guide's own form', which restates the schema description, but overall 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain the return value — and it does, itemizing every attribute of each field. For a simple, single-optional-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only auth or error conditions are unstated.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully described there ('a guide's own form, for a different reader'). The description echoes this ('With form, the questions of that guide's own form') without adding format, default, or behavioral detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the resource precisely (every field of the Grain Storage Costs enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each field carries: key, label, type, required flag, help text, options. An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry without opening the schema, though the verb is implicit (a noun phrase rather than 'retrieve the 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?

Explicitly ties the tool into the workflow: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' tells the agent this is the prerequisite step for submission. It also explains when the optional form parameter applies (a guide's own form). No explicit exclusion or when-not guidance, so not 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 burden and does most of it well: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double opt-in email link, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked, plus exactly what consent authorises (up to three firms, contact directly, opt-out). The gap is failure behaviour — it never says what happens when validation rejects the answers or when the token is wrong/expired, which matters for a two-call mutation.

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 step structure is front-loaded and the negations come first, which is right. However the full consent paragraph is pasted verbatim into the description when the input schema already contains the identical text, so a substantial fraction of the body is duplicated structured data rather than added value.

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, nested-object, consent-bearing submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: gather fields, validate, present summary and consent line to the human, re-submit with token, then email confirmation. Nothing an agent needs to sequence the calls 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 earns an extra point by linking parameters across calls and siblings ('answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', 'same answers' on step 2, form's own consent line supplied by enquiry_fields). It doesn't add format guidance for the token or explain the form enum's scoping beyond the schema's own text.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Grain Storage Costs') and immediately scopes it with negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') that prevent the most likely misclassification. Siblings (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) are implicitly positioned as the sources of fields/consent used here, so an agent can tell what this tool does that they don't.

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 a precise two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. The gate condition for each call is explicit, and the pre-requisite (answers keyed from enquiry_fields) is named rather than inferred.

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