site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It transparently states that 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free,' and enumerates the return content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This discloses the tool's non-destructive, informational nature without relying on annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first.' It conveys the core purpose, key exclusions, and return content without excessive verbosity. The title is a bit unconventional but doesn't detract from the description's 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how it should be used. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke 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, so the schema covers everything (100% coverage). The description doesn't need to add parameter details; per calibration, a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no confusion.

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 uses a specific verb ('states plainly') and a specific resource ('submit_enquiry on Grease Trap Cleaning Cost'), clearly distinguishing itself from sibling tools: it describes what submit_enquiry does, not the action itself. This makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 opens with 'Read first,' giving an explicit instruction to use this tool before submit_enquiry. While it doesn't name alternative tools like enquiry_fields or specify when not to use it, the directive is clear and actionable for the agent.

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 must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the content of the response but does not explicitly say whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. Since it only returns field definitions, it is likely safe, but the lack of an explicit read-only statement or mention of any prerequisites leaves some ambiguity.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose and enumerates the attributes, and the second provides a crucial usage pointer. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description provides all essential information: what the tool returns (field attributes), and how to use the result (pass to submit_enquiry). An agent can call this tool without additional context, and the description fully compensates for the missing structured metadata.

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 schema is trivially 100% covered. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to explain inputs, and it adds no parameter-related semantics; it only clarifies the output structure, which is out of scope for this dimension.

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 the tool returns every field of the Grease Trap Cleaning Cost enquiry, listing the attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on field-level details rather than the enquiry as a whole, so an agent can tell it apart from 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?

It gives a concrete usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', which tells the agent that the output should be used to construct a submission. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or contrast with enquiry_describe, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario.

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 burden, and it is transparent about side effects and sequencing: this is not a purchase, a second call is required, and the person receives an email with a link they must click before any provider sees the enquiry. It also states exactly what consent means and what step 1 returns.

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 long only because the tool genuinely requires a two-step flow. Each sentence earns its place, the core purpose is front-loaded, and the step-by-step structure makes the required call sequence easy to follow.

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, so the description compensates by describing step 1's return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the precondition for step 2, and the final outcome. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, and it points to enquiry_fields for the answer keys.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines answers, consent, and confirmation. The description reinforces these meanings and ties them to the two steps, but it adds little property-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Grease Trap Cleaning Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This makes both the operation and its boundary unmistakable, and the references to enquiry_fields and the two-step distinction separate it from the sibling tools.

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 an explicit step-by-step protocol: call once with answers and consent=true, show the returned summary/consent line, and only call again if the person agrees with the same answers and the confirmation token. It does not explicitly compare against enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields as alternatives, though it does point to enquiry_fields for answer keys.

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