site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free, which addresses the main side-effect concern. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It stops short of explicitly saying 'this call has no side effects,' but the informational nature is strongly conveyed.

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 important 'Read first' directive. Each sentence contributes: purpose, safety/expectation setting, and return contents. A small amount of ambiguity comes from referring heavily to submit_enquiry, but the text remains appropriately sized.

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 adequately explains what the tool returns and the context in which it should be read. It covers the user-relevant expectations, the recipient information, and confirmation flow. It could be slightly more explicit that this tool does not itself submit anything, but the overall context is complete enough.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed because there are no parameters to document.

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 indicates the tool is a pre-submission explanation: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and clarifies the outcome is an enquiry, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing that tool rather than performing it, though the phrasing could more explicitly state that enquiry_describe itself returns informational text.

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' gives a clear contextual cue that this tool should be used before acting on submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended placement before submission is evident and sufficient for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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 disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool exposes field metadata and enumerates its content, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any response-shape or error behavior. This is adequate for a metadata-retrieval tool but leaves some safety inference to the agent.

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-loads the complete output content, the second immediately gives the actionable connection to submit_enquiry. No filler or redundant wording.

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 adequately enumerates what the returned fields contain and how they relate to submitting an enquiry. It could be more complete by contrasting with enquiry_describe or describing the field list's scope, but it is sufficient for basic 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?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add; baseline 4 applies. The description adds related value by clarifying that field keys are the expected keys for submit_enquiry answers.

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 specifies the resource ('every field of the Livery Prices enquiry') and enumerates the exact attributes returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It is clear about what the tool provides, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists' and does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 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 second sentence gives an actionable usage direction: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This establishes when the tool is useful (before submitting an enquiry), but it does not explicitly address when not to use it or how it compares to enquiry_describe.

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, and it discloses validation, return of summary/consent line/token, the email link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is rich behavioral transparency for a side-effectful submission 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?

Dense but purposeful; it front-loads purpose and exclusions before stepping through the two calls. The quoted consent line is long but operationally necessary; still, the description is slightly more verbose than a minimal definition could be.

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 two-step, high-stakes submission with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, consent, validation response, token, second call, email link, and provider visibility. No essential calling information is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, but the description adds workflow semantics: answers must use field keys from enquiry_fields, the confirmation token is the step-1 artifact needed for final submission, and consent must remain true in both calls. This materially explains how the parameters interact beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 precise action ('submits an enquiry to Livery Prices') with strong exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and a two-step workflow, which clearly distinguishes this from the sibling enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields tools. The title reinforces the same distinction.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing: step 1 with answers and consent, step 2 only after agreement and with the confirmation token. It specifies the exact precondition (answers keyed by enquiry_fields) and an exclusion (not purchase or quote), but does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe as an alternative.

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