site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool starts an enquiry with human providers, has no purchase or payment implications, does not guarantee a quote, is free, and returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is thorough and accurate for an informational read-only 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the key directive 'Read first.' Every sentence adds meaningful information: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. There is no fluff 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-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the operation's meaning, its non-transactional nature, and the content of the response. An agent has everything it needs to invoke this tool appropriately.

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 for parameter semantics is 4. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return content rather than parameters, and no additional parameter information 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 states a clear informational purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Lease Renewal Cost, distinguishing the tool from actual submission. It explicitly defines scope by saying nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, and no quote is guaranteed.

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' clearly signals that this tool should be used before submitting an enquiry, giving practical guidance about sequencing. It does not explicitly discuss when to use enquiry_fields or when not to use this tool, so exclusions are absent but context 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. It discloses what the tool returns (field metadata) and implies a read-only metadata lookup. It also notes that allowed options are included only 'where there are any', giving useful nuance about variable output content.

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, the first front-loading the resource and attributes, the second adding a direct usage instruction. No filler words; 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?

The description sufficiently explains the return content and how to use it with submit_enquiry. Given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it does not need to explain errors or ordering. Slightly more explicit return structure (e.g., an array of field objects) could push it higher, but it is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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 input schema is empty and there are zero parameters, so the description bears no parameter-explanation burden. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately stays focused on output rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 Lease Renewal Cost enquiry, listing the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It differentiates from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be keyed by field key, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling 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?

It provides clear context: the tool exposes fields for the Lease Renewal Cost enquiry, and the output should be used to key answers when calling submit_enquiry. It does not offer explicit exclusions or compare against enquiry_describe, but the usage relationship is made concrete.

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. It discloses that this is not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote, explains the two-step flow, the exact consent requirement, the email link that must be clicked, and the condition that submission only happens after the token is provided. This is highly transparent about behavior.

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 lengthy but packed with necessary operational detail: the two-step process, the consent line, the email link, and what to show the user. It is not overly verbose given the complexity. The most critical information (purpose and two steps) is front-loaded, and each 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with link, provider visibility). It also explains the consent requirement in full. This is complete for an agent to call the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (answers, consent, confirmation) is already well described in the schema. The description adds contextual detail (e.g., answers keyed by field key, the confirmation token from step 1) but these mostly echo the schema. It does not go beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Lease Renewal Cost') and immediately clarifies what it is NOT (a purchase, a guaranteed quote). This distinguishes it from any purchase-like tools and is clearly separate from its siblings (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields). The two-step nature is also front-loaded.

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 step-by-step usage: first call with answers and consent, get a confirmation token, then call again with the token only if the person agrees. It also specifies showing the summary and consent line to the user. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but their purposes are obvious from names; the usage guidance for this tool is thorough.

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