site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states there is no purchase, no payment, no guaranteed quote, and that the service is free, which is critical safety-relevant context for an agent deciding whether to invoke the workflow.

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 'Read first.' Each sentence adds a distinct piece of information: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. It is slightly dense but every clause contributes value.

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 no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's informational nature, its scope, and its return contents. It could be slightly more explicit about being a safe read-only describe action, but the non-transactional language strongly implies 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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly focuses on the tool's output and purpose rather than inventing irrelevant parameter details.

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 ('States plainly') and a clear resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Hydraulic Repair Quotes'), so an agent can tell this is an informational/explainer tool rather than a transactional one. It also explicitly contrasts with 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' which distinguishes it from submit_enquiry.

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' signals that this tool should be consulted before acting, giving a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer enquiry_fields, but it makes the relationship to submit_enquiry obvious without leaving major ambiguity.

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 it discloses the output content well by enumerating exactly what fields will be present. It implicitly communicates a read-only metadata lookup and connects the returned keys to the submit_enquiry workflow. It does not explicitly state that there are no side effects, but the framing and parameterless schema make that clear.

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 the tool's purpose and lists the returned content compactly; the second sentence gives actionable follow-up 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return content and hints at the integration with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about the response shape (e.g., object vs list) and its relationship to enquiry_describe, but overall it gives an agent enough to invoke and use the result 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 already fully describes the accepted input; baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds relevant semantics by explaining that the returned keys are meant to be used as keys for submit_enquiry answers, which helps an agent apply the output correctly.

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 ('Every field of the Hydraulic Repair Quotes enquiry') and enumerates the returned attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'lists', and does not differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, but the resource and content are 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 gives an explicit downstream usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This clearly tells an agent how to use the result. It does not discuss when to avoid this tool or choose enquiry_describe, but for a zero-parameter metadata retriever this is solid contextual guidance.

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 does so excellently. It discloses that this is a two-step validation-then-submit process, that step 1 returns a summary and confirmation token, that step 2 triggers an email with a click link before providers see anything, and the exact consent wording. This is far beyond basic mutation disclosure.

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 longer than average, but the length is justified by the two-step workflow and important non-purchase caveats. It is front-loaded with the key distinction ('NOT a purchase') and then clearly sequences the steps. A little redundancy exists because the consent line appears in both the description and schema, but it is not wasteful overall.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains return values from step 1, the confirmation token handshake, the email-link requirement, the meaning of consent, and what must be shown to the person. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly across both steps.

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 input schema already covers the parameters with 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful procedural context: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the quoted line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This enriches the schema, though it partly restates what the schema already documents.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Hydraulic Repair Quotes' and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are about describing and listing fields, not submitting.

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 usage flow is explicit: call first with answers and consent for validation, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It references enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, giving useful context. It does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_describe or when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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