site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states the negatives ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free') and names the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation step). This is valuable behavioral context beyond a bare read tool, though it could be more explicit about the read-only nature.

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?

It is short and front-loads 'Read first', but the phrasing is padded and indirect ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does'). The title and description also repeat the same guarantees, reducing efficiency.

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 0-parameter informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: the content returned and the key negative guarantees. It leaves only minor gaps around ordering relative to siblings.

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 there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The schema is empty and no parameter semantics are 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 specific content resource: it plainly lays out what submit_enquiry does for the Link building SEO service. An agent can distinguish this informational tool from the submit_enquiry action sibling, though the framing is somewhat circuitous ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does').

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' implies when to use it relative to the submit_enquiry action, but neither the sibling enquiry_fields nor submit_enquiry is named as an explicit alternative. The usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape: keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and allowed options. It does not state that the call is read-only/side-effect free, nor any auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a zero-parameter lookup it is substantially 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first front-loads what the tool returns; the second front-loads the actionable next step, so an agent gets the payoff immediately.

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 annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back and how to use it. Minor gap: it does not clarify the top-level container of the result (a list/array of field objects) or ordering.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and instead explains how the returned keys should be reused downstream.

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 the resource precisely (every field of the Link building SEO service enquiry) and enumerates the returned attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is not a tautology, though it uses a noun phrase with no explicit verb and does not distinguish 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?

It gives one concrete usage instruction — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which implies this is a discovery step before submission. However, it never says when to use this versus the sibling enquiry_describe, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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 well: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double opt-in email step before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent text. This is far beyond what the schema conveys.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat are front-loaded, and the step ordering is clear. It is somewhat long and repeats the consent wording already present in the schema, but every sentence contributes procedural 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token; step 2 triggers a confirmation email. For a nested-object, two-step tool this is complete enough 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 real meaning: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is the token returned from step 1 after human approval. It clarifies the token's provenance and lifecycle beyond the schema's terse wording.

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) and resource (an enquiry to the Link building SEO service) and immediately disambiguates from a purchase or guaranteed quote. An agent can distinguish this from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools 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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-step sequence: step 1 with answers + consent=true to obtain a summary and token, step 2 only after the person agrees, re-sending answers plus the token. It states the gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the required human confirmation, leaving no ambiguity about when to call each step.

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