site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also discloses what the tool returns, making the informational nature of this tool clear. It could more directly state that this tool itself performs no submission, but the wording strongly implies it.

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 and front-loads the most important instruction ('Read first'). Every clause contributes meaningful information: what the tool explains, what it does not do, and what it returns. 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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It identifies the subject, the key exclusions, and the return contents. An agent can decide to call it and know what to expect without additional schema or annotations.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it does not introduce any confusion about 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Heritage Statement Cost.' It also clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on explanation rather than submission, and notes it returns specific information. This is unambiguous and differentiated.

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' gives explicit guidance to use this before acting, and the description clarifies what submit_enquiry is not (a purchase, order, payment, or guaranteed quote). It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over enquiry_fields, but the advisory tone and focus on explaining the flow provide clear enough context.

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 of explaining behavior. It discloses what the tool returns (every field's metadata) and implies a read-only, informational operation. The downstream instruction about submit_enquiry makes clear that this tool itself does not submit answers, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only'.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the tool's subject and enumerates the return contents, followed by a useful usage note. Every clause adds information and there is no redundancy.

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 simple, zero-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent will receive and how to use that information with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The schema already covers this completely, and the description appropriately focuses on the output rather than 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?

The description identifies the exact resource (the Heritage Statement Cost enquiry) and enumerates the specific data returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also clearly distinguishes this tool from submit_enquiry by positioning it as the source of field keys used in submissions.

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 provides clear context on how the tool fits into a workflow: retrieve fields here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly say when to use enquiry_describe as an alternative, but the use case is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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 does so thoroughly. It discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that consent has a specific agreed meaning, that the first call only validates, that the second call actually submits, and that the person must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry.

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 structured and front-loaded with the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then lays out Step 1 and Step 2 in a logical sequence. It is fairly long but every sentence carries necessary workflow information; minor redundancy with the title and the consent line repeated from the schema keeps it from a perfect score.

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 complex two-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete. It explains the two-call protocol, what Step 1 returns, when Step 2 is appropriate, the exact consent wording, and the email-link requirement. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly without further clarification.

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?

Although the schema already documents all parameters, the description adds crucial operational meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent=true is the required state, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1 after approval. This goes well beyond the raw schema definitions.

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 Heritage Statement Cost' and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are clearly informational rather than submission-oriented.

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 provides an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 validates and returns a summary and confirmation token; Step 2 must only be called after the person agrees, using the token. It also tells the agent to use answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, giving concrete routing guidance and prerequisites.

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