site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it excels: it explicitly states no purchase occurs, no payment is made, no quote is guaranteed, the service is free, and it describes what information is returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method).

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 and front-loaded with the critical 'Read first' instruction. Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. No wasted words.

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 informational tool, the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's purpose, disambiguates it from submission, clarifies non-purchase expectations, and summarizes the return content. An agent has everything needed to use it correctly.

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 is empty and there is nothing for the description to explain. This matches the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools; no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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's purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does, distinguishing it as an informational pre-read rather than a purchase or submission. The title reinforces the distinction from actual enquiry submission. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like submit_enquiry and enquiry_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?

The opening 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before submitting an enquiry. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies this is the orientation/reference tool for understanding the submission flow.

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 behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states what the tool returns (all fields and their attributes) and adds the useful context that these keys are used to pass answers to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state side effects or response shape, but for a read-only metadata enumeration this is largely sufficient.

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. It front-loads the core resource and purpose, uses a compact colon list for the returned attributes, and closes with a practical pointer to submit_enquiry. Every sentence 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?

For a simple, parameterless metadata tool, the description provides the essential return contents and a clear connection to the submission flow. However, it does not specify the response shape (array vs object) or explicitly address the relationship to enquiry_describe, which leaves a small but non-critical gap.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter details because none are needed; the schema properties object is empty and the description does not introduce any hidden 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 clearly identifies the resource ('Hernia Surgery Cost enquiry') and enumerates the returned field metadata attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers are keyed by field key, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 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?

The description implies when to use the tool: to discover the fields and keys needed before calling submit_enquiry. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or contrast with enquiry_describe, so the usage context is present but incomplete.

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 executes superbly. It discloses the two-step confirmation requirement, validation behavior, the returned summary/token, the exact consent wording to show, and the post-submission email-link gating before any provider sees the enquiry. This is deep behavioral disclosure with zero reliance on structured metadata.

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 but every sentence earns its place — the two-step protocol, consent wording, and email-link behavior are all essential for correct invocation. The 'NOT a purchase' disclaimer is front-loaded, and the step-1/step-2 numbering gives clear structure to a genuinely complex workflow.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: return values from step 1 are named, the consent requirement is quoted verbatim, the follow-up call condition is explicit, and post-submission behavior (email link, provider visibility) is disclosed. For a high-complexity two-step tool, nothing essential 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 adds workflow meaning beyond it by tying 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields and explaining when each parameter is used (step 1 needs answers+consent, step 2 adds confirmation). This contextual framing helps an agent know which parameters matter at which stage, which the schema alone does not convey.

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 Hernia Surgery Cost') and immediately scopes what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), separating it from any transactional sibling. The title reinforces this with 'two steps; not a purchase', making the tool's identity unmistakable.

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: call with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token, then call again with the token only if the person agrees. It gives the exact condition for proceeding ('only if the person agrees') and references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, routing the agent correctly.

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