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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it discloses validation-then-submit sequencing, the exact return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the downstream double opt-in email link required before any provider sees the data, and the exposure limit of up to three yards with an opt-out. That is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for an irreversible outbound action.

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?

Front-loaded with the essential 'what it is / what it is not', then cleanly segmented into Step 1 and Step 2. It loses a little efficiency by quoting the full consent text, which is already duplicated verbatim in the schema's consent description.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming exactly what step 1 returns and what happens after step 2. For a mutation tool with a nested object parameter and a consent contract, nothing material is left for the agent to guess.

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 procedural meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true is required at both steps, and confirmation is only meaningful on step 2 and must be the token returned by step 1.

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+resource (submits an enquiry) and immediately scopes it negatively against a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also orients the agent to the sibling it depends on by naming enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can place it among the three tools without opening schemas.

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, sequential when-to-use rules: call once with answers+consent to validate, and call again with the confirmation token only after the person approves. It does not explicitly contrast against enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields, but the two-step gating condition is unambiguous.

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