site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns recipients, consent wording, and the confirmation mechanism. It doesn't mention caching, auth, or side effects, but for a read-only describe tool this is substantial context.

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?

"Read first" is front-loaded as an actionable directive, followed by compact clauses that each add distinct information (what happens, what doesn't happen, what is returned). Slightly dense in a single sentence but no filler.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the return content (who receives details, consent wording, how the person confirms), which compensates for the absent output schema. Adequately complete, though it could be clearer that this tool itself returns no side effects beyond the explanation.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline no parameter explanation is required. The description correctly adds none and focuses on output content instead.

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 specific purpose: explaining what submit_enquiry does on the Lead generation flow and what an enquiry entails (human providers, no purchase, no guaranteed quote). It is clearly an informational/descriptive tool, distinct from enquiry_fields and submit_enquiry, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against those siblings.

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." gives a clear ordering cue implying this should be consulted before submitting an enquiry, which is useful. However, it never names the alternatives (enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry) or states when this tool is preferable to opening those directly, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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. It is clearly a metadata read (no mutation implied) and it helpfully describes the shape of each returned field, but it does not state that the operation is side-effect free, whether it requires auth, or anything about caching/rate limits.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the downstream usage hint. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return fields (key, label, type, required, help text, options) carries the necessary informational load. It omits any safety/behavior framing, but for a zero-parameter read endpoint it is nearly complete.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, and the sentence about keying answers by field key concerns downstream usage rather than this tool's inputs.

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 resource (the fields of the roofing Lead generation enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. No explicit verb ('return'/'list') is used, but the delivered content is unambiguous, and it references submit_enquiry so an agent can place it among its siblings.

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' implies this tool is the discovery step before submission, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to use this versus enquiry_describe, and it provides no explicit when-not 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the email-link gating before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent meaning. It omits error handling, idempotency, and any auth requirements.

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 core purpose and exclusions are front-loaded, then the two steps are clearly labeled. It is dense but justified for a two-step workflow; the consent quote is somewhat repetitive with the schema but supports the instruction to show the consent line.

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 complex two-step, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers the full flow and even explains returned values from Step 1. It does not mention the enquiry_describe sibling or what happens if validation fails, but is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 useful semantics: answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, and the confirmation token is tied to the approved Step 1 summary. It also clarifies that consent=true must reflect the person's agreement, which goes slightly beyond the schema description.

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 to Lead generation for roofing') and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source for field keys, helping an agent tell it apart from related tools.

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 explicit Step 1 and Step 2 instructions, including the condition that Step 2 happens only if the person agrees. It does not name sibling alternatives such as enquiry_describe or explain when not to use this tool beyond the purchase/quote exclusion.

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