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 it is free. It also explains what information is returned. It stops short of explicitly confirming that this describe tool itself has no side effects or auth requirements.

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 concise and front-loads the key instruction "Read first" before explaining purpose and behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, though the phrasing could be slightly tighter.

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 no output schema and a meta-informational purpose, the description explains what it returns: who receives details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It is nearly complete, with the only notable gap being that it does not mention the enquiry_fields sibling.

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema is empty and fully covered by the zero-parameter baseline, requiring no further clarification in the description.

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 that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does and returns details about the enquiry process, distinguishing it from the action-oriented sibling by framing it as informational ("Read first", "States plainly"). It does not differentiate from the other sibling, enquiry_fields, so it falls 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 implied usage: call this before submit_enquiry to understand what will happen. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_fields, leaving alternatives 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does describe the return payload in detail (field metadata including help text and allowed options). It stops short of explicitly stating the operation is read-only with no side effects or of any rate/refresh 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?

Two sentences: the first defines the return shape, the second states the follow-up action. Front-loaded and every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does so by listing the returned field attributes. It is nearly complete; only the relationship to enquiry_describe is left ambiguous for an agent choosing among 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 nothing needs documenting and the schema is fully self-contained. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly does not waste space on nonexistent inputs.

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 resource (every field of the Growth Shares Valuation enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each field record contains: key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which is the only gap.

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 clear workflow guidance: call this to learn the fields, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It names the downstream sibling and the keying convention, though it never states when to prefer this over enquiry_describe.

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 and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary plus a token, that step 2 performs the actual submission, that an email verification step gates provider visibility, and the exact meaning of consent. It also warns that no guaranteed quote results, heading off a false expectation of a commercial outcome.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and the 'not a purchase' disclaimer, then the two steps in order, which is the right structure for a flow tool. It is dense and slightly overlong because the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim, duplicating what the schema already documents for the consent parameter.

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 nested-object, two-phase mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: input source for answers, the sequencing of the token, the consent semantics, and the downstream email-verification gate. The only omission is failure/retry behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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 ties 'answers' to field keys sourced from enquiry_fields and explains that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1, which is the non-obvious sequencing constraint. It does not add value types or format examples beyond the schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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 Growth Shares Valuation') and immediately delimits scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misread. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools enquiry_fields (source of field keys) and enquiry_describe, so an agent can route correctly.

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 prescribes a two-step protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 only after the person approves the summary and only when the confirmation token is supplied. It also states the gating condition that the recipient must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. When-to-use and when-not-to-proceed are both spelled out.

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