site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that quotes are not guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also mentions what information the tool returns, giving a clear read-only, informational profile.

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 imperative 'Read first,' then delivers the core facts in a direct sequence. It is slightly dense but every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundant 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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description covers what the tool explains, what it returns, and the key caveats. It does not require an output schema because it describes the return content in prose, and it adequately supports an agent deciding to call it before submit_enquiry.

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 schema coverage is effectively complete, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's output and purpose rather than inventing parameter details.

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 tool as a descriptive helper that explains what submit_enquiry does, including the key facts that no purchase or payment occurs and no quote is guaranteed. It names the related sibling submit_enquiry, which helps differentiate it from an actual submission action, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 'Read first' signals that this tool should be used before engaging with submit_enquiry, giving a clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare it against enquiry_fields, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states what data the tool exposes and hints that it is an informational, read-only operation by saying answers should be passed to submit_enquiry rather than to this tool. It does not mention potential caveats such as response format, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool this is largely sufficient.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads exactly what the tool returns, and the second sentence gives actionable guidance about how to use the returned field keys.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the returned content and how to use it with a sibling tool. It could be slightly more complete by distinguishing itself from enquiry_describe, but overall it gives an agent enough to call and apply 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?

The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant guidance that the returned field keys should be used to key answers for submit_enquiry, which enriches the meaning of the tool's output even though the input schema is empty.

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 tool as returning every field of the LEV Testing Cost enquiry, along with each field's key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It is specific about the resource and content, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the 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?

The description gives useful context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implicitly indicating when this tool should be used before submission. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this versus enquiry_describe or state any exclusions.

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 so: it discloses the two-stage token handshake, that validation happens in step 1, that submission triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees the data, and that up to three providers may receive the details. It also spells out exactly what consent authorises, which is the key side effect an agent must not misrepresent.

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 critical constraint ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded and the step 1/step 2 structure is easy to follow. The one blemish is that the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim, duplicating the identical text already in the schema's consent description – defensible for emphasis but it lengthens an already dense block.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the two-step protocol, the intermediate return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the final outcome (email with a click-through link), and the consent semantics. Nothing about correct invocation is left unstated.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond it: it explains that 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that 'consent' must be true to proceed, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and only supplied after the person approves the summary. That origin-and-timing detail is not in the schema.

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 an enquiry') plus the recipient ('to LEV Testing Cost') and immediately disambiguates the nature of the action ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so an agent can place it relative to its siblings without opening a 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 explicit, sequenced when-to-use instructions: Step 1 call with answers + consent, show the summary and consent line; Step 2 call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. The conditional gate ('only if the person agrees') removes any ambiguity about when the second call is permitted.

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