site

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. This is unusually transparent for a description.

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 appropriately short, opens with the most important instruction ('Read first'), and each sentence adds a distinct fact: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. No filler or redundancy.

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-argument, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete: it explains why to use it, what consequences to expect, and what return information it provides. Nothing needed to invoke 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter detail to add, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and a specific resource ('on Land Drainage Contractors'), and clearly distinguishes this informational tool from the sibling action submit_enquiry and helper enquiry_fields. The title reinforces the outcome without confusing the tool with the action itself.

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 opening 'Read first' is a direct usage signal telling the agent to consult this tool before taking the submit_enquiry action. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes when-to-use 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain what data will be returned and how it relates to submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. For a simple introspection tool this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise sentences carry all necessary information without repetition or filler. The primary content is front-loaded, and the cross-reference to submit_enquiry is placed at the end as a natural extension of the tool's purpose.

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 simple no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the important return fields and the downstream usage with submit_enquiry. It does not specify the exact response shape or any ordering/grouping details, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is effectively complete. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the description needs to explain about parameters; the mention of field keys refers to output rather than input.

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 states the tool returns every field of the Land Drainage Contractors enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by pointing forward to that tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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?

The instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives concrete context for when to use this tool: before constructing a submission. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to enquiry_describe, but the workflow hint is clear.

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 delivers: a stateful two-step contract (first call validates, second call submits), what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the email-with-link requirement before providers see the enquiry, and the exact legal consent text. The 'NOT a guaranteed quote' caveat further manages expectations about outcomes.

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 every element earns its place: the front-loaded negation, the Step 1/Step 2 structure, the consent quote, and the email-link requirement are all load-bearing for a stateful, consent-gated tool. The step markers make the sequential protocol easy to parse in order.

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?

Even without annotations or an output schema, the description is near-complete: it covers the full call sequence, return artifacts of Step 1, the consent meaning, and the post-submission email flow. The only notable gap is what happens when Step 1 validation fails — no error/retry behavior is described.

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 real operational meaning: it ties 'answers' to the enquiry_fields keys, clarifies that consent=true is required in both steps, and explains that the confirmation token is the stateful handoff between the two calls — context 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 Land Drainage Contractors'), and immediately distinguishes itself from what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step handshake described in the title is fully honored in the body, and referencing 'field key from enquiry_fields' routes the agent to the correct sibling for key lookups.

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 an explicit step-by-step protocol: Step 1 call with answers and consent=true, surface the summary and consent line to the person, then Step 2 call again only if the person agrees, reusing the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token. The conditional ('only if the person agrees') and the email-link prerequisite ('before any provider sees it') leave nothing to inference.

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