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 it does so thoroughly. It discloses side effects (email with link, provider only sees it after link click), the consent line, and the two-step confirmation flow. It also states the tool is not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote, setting expectations.

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 paragraph but organized by Step 1 and Step 2, with the key caveat front-loaded: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It contains no filler; each sentence contributes to the correct call sequence.

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 two-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains validation, summary display, consent requirement, confirmation token, email, and provider visibility. An agent can perform both steps correctly from this description alone.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful usage context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the exact text, and confirmation token comes from step 1. This makes the parameters actionable.

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 the exact verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Interceptor Cleaning Cost'. It immediately disambiguates from a purchase or quote and references the two-step nature. This differentiates it from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which clearly play different roles.

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?

It explicitly describes when to call: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, passing the confirmation token. It references enquiry_fields for answer keys, and clearly states it is not a purchase, so an agent won't confuse it with a billing tool. It doesn't name alternatives explicitly, but the context is unambiguous.

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