site

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses output content and clarifies the non-purchase, non-guaranteed nature of the enquiry. It does not explicitly say the tool executes no side effects, but the 'describe' and 'returns' framing makes that safe to infer.

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 short, front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, and clearly structured around purpose and return content. Every sentence earns its place without repeating the tool name or schema information.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does, what it returns, and how it relates to submit_enquiry. An agent has enough context to call it safely and understand 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 input schema has zero parameters and complete coverage, and a zero-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none 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?

Clearly identifies itself as a descriptive companion to submit_enquiry: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.' This distinguishes it from the submit action and from 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?

The opening directive 'Read first' tells the agent to use this before acting, and it explicitly names submit_enquiry as the action being described. It does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_fields or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only metadata retrieval by listing what the tool returns and points to submit_enquiry for actual submission. Still, it does not explicitly state that this tool has no side effects or that it requires no authentication, which would be more transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence enumerates exactly what information is returned, and the second provides a routing instruction. Every sentence earns its place with no 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-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the return fields and explains how to use the result with the submit_enquiry sibling. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call and use this tool 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, so the schema imposes no burden. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that answers to submit_enquiry must be keyed by the field keys this tool returns, giving meaning to the concept of a field key.

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 action and resource: it returns every field of the Lease Extension Quotes enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This clearly distinguishes it from submit_enquiry, which is about submitting answers rather than inspecting 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?

The description gives a clear directive: use these field keys to pass answers to submit_enquiry. This orients the agent toward the correct workflow. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over enquiry_describe, leaving a small gap in alternative selection.

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 and does so excellently. It discloses validation, the summary/consent/token return from Step 1, the two-step confirmation requirement, the email with a required click, and the exact consent wording. This is far beyond what the schema reveals.

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 structured around clear Step 1 and Step 2 instructions, with the critical 'not a purchase / not a quote' warning front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place: each detail about consent, tokens, and the email link is necessary context for the two-step flow.

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, consent-gated, two-step submission with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It specifies both calls, the required parameters at each step, what happens after submission, and the exact behavior the consent flag represents. An agent has enough information to execute the tool correctly without external clarification.

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 substantial meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true only means the person agreed to the quoted consent line, and confirmation is the token returned by Step 1. These details are not inferable from the schema alone and are essential for correct invocation.

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 action and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Lease Extension Quotes' and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step structure clarifies exactly what the tool does, and the submission action clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use instructions: call Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then call Step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also warns against misuse by stating it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. However, it does not explicitly compare this tool to its siblings, only referencing enquiry_fields for keys, so it stops short of a full alternative-routing explanation.

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