site

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

With no annotations, the description takes the full burden and does it well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and what information the tool returns. This gives an agent the non-obvious behavioral boundaries without relying on annotations.

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, each with a distinct job: orienting the reader, stating the core behavior, and summarizing return contents. The front-loaded 'Read first' is efficient and no sentence is wasted.

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 no-parameter descriptive tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the subject (submit_enquiry), the context (Knee Replacement Cost), clarifies what does not happen, and lists the return content. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

The input schema has zero properties, so parameter semantics are not applicable and the 0-param baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return content rather than 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 states a clear purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Knee Replacement Cost' and describes the enquiry flow with human providers. The tool name and content clearly differentiate it from the action tool submit_enquiry and the field tool enquiry_fields.

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 directive to consult this before acting, and the description frames the tool as the explanation of submit_enquiry, making the intended context clear. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the contrast with submit_enquiry is strongly implied.

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 must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly implies a read-only metadata lookup by describing what fields are returned, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is side-effect free, whether any permissions are needed, or how the output is structured beyond the listed attributes.

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 compactly enumerates the returned field attributes, and the second gives a critical usage hint linked to the sibling tool. This is appropriately sized and 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?

For a zero-parameter metadata tool, the description covers what is returned and how to use the field keys downstream. The main missing piece is clarification of how this tool relates to the sibling enquiry_describe, which could create mild ambiguity about which descriptive tool to use.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds useful context by noting that answers should be keyed by the field keys returned here, which helps the agent understand how the output connects to submit_enquiry.

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 returning metadata for every field of the Knee Replacement Cost enquiry, and lists the exact attributes included. It does not use a strong action verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' provides concrete downstream usage, making it clear the tool is meant to be consulted before submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of enquiry_describe, but the workflow implication is strong.

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 validation behavior in step 1, the exact return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the outbound email with a mandatory click-through, and the fact that no provider sees the enquiry until that click. It also states the commercial context (providers may pay a fixed fee, never a share), which the agent must surface to the person.

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?

Front-loaded with the scope negation and then cleanly sequenced as Step 1 / Step 2, which suits the two-call flow. Slightly penalized because the full consent paragraph is reproduced verbatim and already lives in the schema's consent description, making the block longer than strictly necessary.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does, naming the summary, consent line and confirmation token from step 1 and the resulting email from step 2. For a nested-object, multi-step submission tool this is sufficient for an agent to act 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema cannot: answers are keyed by field key sourced from the enquiry_fields sibling, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and is only valid after the person approves the summary. That cross-tool and cross-step linkage goes beyond the per-field descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Knee Replacement Cost") and immediately bounds it with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." The two-step framing and the reference to enquiry_fields make it distinguishable from the sibling describe/fields tools 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 call sequence: step 1 with answers + consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line, then step 2 only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. The gating condition for the second call ("only if the person agrees") is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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