site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it lists the return content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation). This is strong transparency for an informational 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 'Read first.' It packs necessary information without wasted words, though the semicolon-dense middle sentence is slightly less readable than ideal.

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?

Given no output schema and zero parameters, the description covers the return content, its relationship to submit_enquiry, and safety expectations (no purchase). Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing, though a brief note on enquiry_fields would enhance completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description has nothing to add about inputs. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool applies.

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, specific purpose: to explain what submit_enquiry does on Marine Survey Cost. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by being a read-first informational tool, and the title reinforces that it is about an enquiry, not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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' is an explicit when-to-use directive, positioning this tool before submit_enquiry. It clarifies what the tool is not (a purchase or guaranteed quote), but it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, so it stops short of a 5.

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 behavioral burden. It discloses the nature of the tool as a read-only enumeration of enquiry fields and details what the agent will receive. It does not mention response format or authentication, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool this is adequately 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 with no filler. The first fronts the resource and its content, and the second immediately connects the output to the next actionable step. 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?

For a simple zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it states what is returned and how to use the returned keys. The only minor gap is the lack of any distinction from enquiry_describe, but this does not block 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema carries no burden. The description adds meaningful semantic context by specifying that the returned 'key' is the value to use when submitting answers to submit_enquiry.

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 resource ('every field of the Marine Survey Cost enquiry') and enumerates the exact content: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be keyed by field key, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 a clear workflow instruction: obtain the fields first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving that distinction to inference.

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 does so: it discloses the two-call protocol, that consent=true is mandatory, that a confirmation token gates the real submission, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks an emailed verification link. It even specifies the exact consent wording the agent must surface, which is precisely the kind of behavioral context annotations would otherwise supply.

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 negative scope, then the two steps in order; every sentence does work for the agent. The only waste is restating the verbatim consent text that already appears in the consent parameter description, a minor redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations on a nested-object, two-phase tool, the description still covers what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what the end user receives (verification email), and what consent legally means. Nothing an agent needs to complete the flow 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining the temporal relationship between parameters (confirmation token comes 'from step 1, after the person has approved the summary') and that answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields. It slightly duplicates the consent text already in the schema, capping this below 5.

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), resource (enquiry) and explicitly delimits scope: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the two-step protocol, which is the tool's defining behavior, so an agent cannot confuse it with a purchase or quote tool.

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 when-to-call branching: Step 1 with answers + consent to validate, Step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the token. It also names enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, routing the agent to the right sibling for input construction.

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