site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also discloses the return content. It could more explicitly state that enquiry_describe itself performs no submission, but the 'Read first' framing makes this reasonably 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?

Three sentences with front-loaded 'Read first' and a compact summary of the tool's output. Minor redundancy between 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'it is free,' but the text is appropriately sized and structured for quick scanning.

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 helper tool, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, sets behavioral expectations, and lists exactly what information is returned. An agent has enough context to invoke it and interpret the result.

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 a 100% schema-covered empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about what the returned explanation covers, which is more than needed for 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 identifies the tool as a read-first explainer: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on ISO Certification Cost and enumerates the returned content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation). This differentiates it from the actual submission sibling submit_enquiry, and the title reinforces that the result is an enquiry, not a purchase 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 a direct cue to use this tool before taking any action, which implicitly distinguishes it from submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly reference the enquiry_fields sibling or state when not to use it, but the purpose and timing are clear enough.

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 present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the output shape (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and implies a read-only retrieval behavior. It does not discuss errors, permissions, or side effects, but for a parameterless field-listing tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 carry all necessary information: the first defines what fields are returned and the second explains how to use them. There is no filler, and the most important detail—what the tool provides—is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the return fields and linking to the downstream submit_enquiry workflow. It is complete enough to call the tool correctly, though it leaves the sibling enquiry_describe unaddressed, which is a minor gap given the sibling list.

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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The zero-parameter baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the returned data rather than 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 states a specific resource ('every field of the ISO Certification Cost enquiry') and lists the exact contents (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It also separates this tool from submit_enquiry by telling the agent that answers go there keyed by field key. This is a clear, specific definition that names what the tool exposes.

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 a clear workflow: obtain fields here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent when to use the tool relative to one sibling. It does not mention enquiry_describe or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it lacks full alternative exclusion but provides solid context.

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 does so: it discloses that step 1 is validation-only, that a confirmation token gates the real submission, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three chosen consultants. It also spells out exactly what consent means, which is critical for an irreversible disclosure of personal data.

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 front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact ('NOT a purchase') and each sentence adds protocol detail. The main inefficiency is restating the consent text verbatim, which the schema's consent field already documents, creating duplication.

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, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what step 2 does, and the downstream email-confirmation gate. Nothing material 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, and that the same consent/answers must be resent in step 2 alongside the confirmation token. That clarifies the temporal relationship between parameters that 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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (an enquiry to ISO Certification Cost), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings and from adjacent concepts by ruling out 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can tell this apart from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without opening any schema.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 call with answers + consent=true to validate and obtain a token; step 2 only after the person agrees, calling again with the token. It states the precondition for each call and what must be shown to the person in between, leaving nothing to inference.

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