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 well: it discloses the two-step flow, that step 1 only validates and returns a token, that submission triggers an email with a click-to-confirm link before providers see anything, that up to three providers are contacted, and the exact consent wording. This is rich behavioral detail an agent could not infer otherwise.

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?

Well front-loaded with the key distinction (not a purchase) and cleanly structured as Step 1/Step 2. It is somewhat long because the consent wording is quoted verbatim, which is justified for accuracy but adds bulk.

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 a mutation-style tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the two-step protocol, parameter dependencies, consent semantics, and the downstream email-confirmation behavior. 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning the schema cannot: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person has read and agreed, and confirmation is the token from step 1 required only in step 2. It explains the interaction between parameters across the two calls, which the flat schema 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+resource (submits an enquiry to Knee Replacement Cost) and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step structure further clarifies exactly what the tool does and when each invocation happens.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each step: Step 1 with answers+consent, Step 2 only after the person agrees and with the confirmation token. Also routes the agent by naming sibling tools (enquiry_fields for field keys), leaving no ambiguity about sequencing or alternatives.

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