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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the tool is not a purchase, that a confirmation token gates real submission, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data, and exactly what consent signifies. It also states what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), which is essential for driving step 2.

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 key negation and the two-step skeleton, and every sentence is functional. The verbatim consent sentence is long and duplicates text already present in the consent parameter's schema description, which is the only real 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?

Complete for a 3-parameter nested tool with no output schema: it covers step ordering, the token handoff, the consent gate, the email verification step, and what step 1 returns. 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both calls, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1. It stops short of describing the shape or validation rules of the nested answers object.

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 (enquiry to Land Drainage Contractors), and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings — 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_fields (which supplies keys) and enquiry_describe without opening either 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 with answers and consent=true to validate, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition for each call is spelled out rather than inferred.

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