site

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the transparency burden and clearly discloses that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also states what the response contains (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation mechanism); only a direct statement that this tool itself is side-effect-free is absent.

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 'Read first' and every subsequent sentence earns its place: purpose, key caveats, and return-value contents. There is no filler or redundancy beyond the minimal repetition of the title's caveat.

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 an informational, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains why to call it, what the underlying submit_enquiry does, what is not true about it, and what information the response will convey. An agent has enough context to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema already covers everything (100% coverage), so there is no parameter burden for the description. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter details could add value.

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 identifies a specific verb ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does'), and the title frames the deliverable as an explanation rather than a purchase or quote. This makes it immediately distinct from the sibling submit_enquiry, which is the action tool.

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 positional cue to invoke this tool before submit_enquiry, and the caveats tell the agent what it will learn. It does not explicitly name when to prefer enquiry_fields or exclude alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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 behavioral disclosure burden; it describes a read-only enumeration of fields and their metadata, which is transparent enough for this simple introspection tool. It does not discuss edge cases such as missing help text or output ordering, but these are minor for a parameterless listing tool.

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 sentences pack the full output contract and the downstream usage without filler. The content is front-loaded as a single clear spec, and every sentence earns its place.

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 the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return contents in enough detail for an agent to call it and interpret the result, and it situates the result in the submission workflow. Nothing essential is missing for a task of this complexity.

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 and the input schema already covers that fully, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful cross-tool semantics by saying field keys are the keys to use when passing answers to submit_enquiry, but no further parameter documentation is needed.

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 resource ('the Latent Defects Insurance Cost enquiry') and the exact contents returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is less explicit as an imperative action and does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of 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?

It gives actionable context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, establishing the tool's role in the workflow. It does not state when not to use it or compare it to enquiry_describe, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit on alternatives.

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 richly: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits and triggers an email, and that a clicked email link is required before any provider sees the data. It also spells out the exact consent scope (up to three brokers).

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 critical 'not a purchase' caveat and organized as a clean Step 1 / Step 2 narrative. It is dense and the full consent sentence is repeated verbatim from the schema, which is mildly redundant, but the length is justified by the two-step flow's complexity.

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 returns, and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token). For a no-annotation mutation tool with a confirmation gate, side effects and prerequisites are fully covered; 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by tying 'answers' to the field keys returned by the sibling enquiry_fields and by explaining that the confirmation token originates from step 1's return. It doesn't add per-parameter types or constraints beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish it from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_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 two-step protocol: call step 1 with answers+consent to validate, then call step 2 only if the person agrees, passing the token. The condition selecting each call is stated, and it names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys.

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