site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does so thoroughly: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it lists exactly what is returned (who receives details, consent wording, and 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 short and front-loaded with 'Read first,' then delivers behavioral guarantees and return content in a few compact sentences. Every sentence earns its place with 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 fully covers purpose, side effects, cost, and return contents. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret its result 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 takes zero parameters, so the empty schema and 100% coverage provide the baseline of 4; the description appropriately adds no parameter details because none exist.

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/resource pair: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on Interceptor Cleaning Cost.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by positioning itself as the read-first explanation, and clarifies it is not a purchase, order, or guaranteed quote.

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' is an explicit instruction to use this tool before acting on submit_enquiry, giving the agent a clear ordering. It does not, however, mention the other sibling enquiry_fields or state explicit exclusions, so it falls just short of full alternative-routing 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, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states what information is returned and implies a read-only, introspection-only role by directing submission to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or mention side effects, but nothing in the wording suggests mutation or other hidden 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates the returned contents, and the second connects those contents to the next action, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 parameterless metadata-lookup tool, the description sufficiently covers what is returned and how the result should be used. The only notable gap is the lack of any contrast with enquiry_describe, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, and the rule for no-parameter tools is a baseline of 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter-specific details because there are none to document.

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 (the Interceptor Cleaning Cost enquiry) and enumerates exactly what the tool returns: field key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It implicitly separates itself from submit_enquiry by positioning the output as the keys for submission, though it does not directly contrast 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?

There is a concrete usage hint: pass the returned field keys when calling submit_enquiry. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over the sibling enquiry_describe or when not to use it, so the selection logic is left mostly 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 full burden and does so richly: validation behavior, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and the full consent semantics including up to three contractors and the opt-out right.

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?

Dense and somewhat long, but the length is justified by a genuinely two-phase, high-stakes flow. The non-purchase caveat is front-loaded and each sentence carries operative instruction rather than 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what each call returns and the downstream email-confirmation consequence, and it fully covers consent intent. Nothing an agent needs to invoke either step correctly 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, but the description adds sequencing semantics the schema cannot: answers come from enquiry_fields keys, consent must be true, and the confirmation token is only supplied in step 2 after approval. That materially clarifies how the parameters interact across calls.

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+resource (submits an enquiry) and immediately disambiguates intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step framing and reference to the enquiry_fields sibling make it identifiable against nearby tools.

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 explicit when-to-call conditions for both steps, including the gate 'only if the person agrees' before step 2, and routes the agent to enquiry_fields for field keys. It tells the agent exactly what to show the person between calls.

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