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 provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it explains the two-step stateful behavior, validation, consent text, the confirmation token, the email with the click link, and that providers see the enquiry only after the link is clicked. This goes well beyond a simple mutation summary.

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 front-loaded with the key caveat ('NOT a purchase') and organizes the flow as Step 1 and Step 2. It is detailed but every sentence contributes necessary procedural or safety information, including the exact consent text and the email-link condition.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains both call phases, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what to show the person, and the post-submission email-link behavior. Nothing needed to invoke the tool 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 critical semantics: answers must be drawn from enquiry_fields, consent must correspond to the exact consent line, and confirmation is the step-1 token used only after user approval. This clarifies the temporal relationship between the three parameters in a way the schema alone does not.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Knee Replacement Cost,' and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools as the submission action, and the title reinforces the two-step nature.

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 explicit step-by-step usage: call once without confirmation to validate and get a token, then call again with the token only after the person agrees. It references 'enquiry_fields' for keying answers, giving useful context, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling tools or when not to use it beyond the 'not a purchase' note.

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