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. It covers what happens on submission: human providers quote directly, nothing is bought or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also notes what information is returned, which is valuable transparency.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first' and a clear statement of what it does. Every sentence adds meaningful information: the action, the non-committal nature, and the return content. 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 describe-style tool with no output schema, this is complete. It explains the purpose, the scope, the user-facing consequences, and the information returned. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and how to use 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 there is nothing for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately does not attempt to invent parameter semantics.

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's job is to explain what submit_enquiry does, with specific details about the enquiry outcome. It explicitly references the sibling submit_enquiry tool and positions itself as the 'read first' companion, making differentiation easy.

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 phrase 'Read first' is a direct usage instruction telling the agent to consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state 'do not use this to submit an enquiry', but the contrast with submit_enquiry is strong enough that the intended workflow is clear.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns and how the output should be consumed by submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but a zero-parameter field metadata tool strongly implies that, and no surprising side effects are suggested.

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, no filler. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence gives actionable downstream guidance. 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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the returned field attributes and the intended downstream usage well. A short note about how this differs from enquiry_describe would make it fully complete, but the current definition is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 imposes no burden on the agent. The description adds useful semantic context about field keys and how they should be used when submitting answers, which exceeds the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 the tool exposes every field of the HVAC Maintenance Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is distinguishable from submit_enquiry because it explicitly references passing answers to that tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with 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 gives clear downstream guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the tool is meant to be used before submitting answers, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or mention exclusion cases.

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 behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that this is not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote, that the enquiry is only sent after explicit consent, that a confirmation token is required, and that the provider only sees it after the person clicks the emailed link.

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 dense, with each sentence covering an essential part of the two-step flow or a critical caveat. It is front-loaded with the most important 'not a purchase' distinction, though some phrasing overlaps with the title.

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?

The description fully explains the two-step process, consent requirements, the confirmation token, and the email-link step. It even includes the exact consent wording. The main gap is that it doesn't describe what a successful step-2 call returns, and there is no output schema to fill that 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that answers come from enquiry_fields, that confirmation is the token returned in step 1, and that consent must match a specific consent line, linking the parameters to the workflow.

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 submits an enquiry to HVAC Maintenance Cost and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, so sibling differentiation relies mostly on the tool name and title.

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 two-step calling sequence is described in detail: first call validates and returns a token, second call submits only after the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for answer keys, implying a prerequisite, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields.

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