site

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It signals a non-mutating information tool via 'States... returns' and, while those details mostly describe submit_enquiry's behavior, the wording makes clear that the describe call itself only returns content. It could be more explicit that calling this tool performs no submission.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first'. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information: purpose, non-transactional nature, and returned content.

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, the description usefully summarizes what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It is complete enough for a simple zero-parameter describe tool, though a note on the return format would make it fully self-sufficient.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 names a specific verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and lists what it returns. This clearly separates the read-only explainer role from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry and the fields-oriented 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?

'Read first' explicitly tells the agent to call this before submitting, and the description clarifies what process it documents. It does not contrast with enquiry_fields or give an explicit when-not-to-use rule, so it falls just 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 full burden. It discloses the return contents in detail: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It implies a read-only schema-retrieval operation and does not mention side effects, which is appropriate for this 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and content, with no filler. The second sentence adds a practical usage pointer that 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 zero-parameter field-listing tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the output fields and the expected downstream use. It does not define the exact response format, but the listed attributes make the structure understandable enough for an agent to proceed.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by noting that the field keys are intended to be used when passing answers to submit_enquiry, which helps the agent understand how this tool's output relates to the sibling tool.

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—the Martyn's Law Cost enquiry fields—and enumerates exactly what information is provided (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is distinct from submit_enquiry, which is mentioned as the downstream consumer, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 clear contextual guidance: use this tool to obtain field keys and then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those field keys. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions, but the intended workflow is evident.

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 full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that this is not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote, requires explicit consent with the exact consent text, and that the enquiry is only visible after the person clicks a link in a follow-up email. These are meaningful side-effect and state-change disclosures.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries operational content: the non-purchase warning, exact consent wording, step sequencing, and email-link behavior. It is mildly redundant with the title ('two steps; not a purchase'), but the repetition reinforces critical constraints, and the workflow is front-loaded.

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 submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: required inputs, consent semantics, step-2 token reuse, confirmation flow, and post-submission behavior. It even references the sibling enquiry_fields tool for valid answer keys.

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?

Although the schema documents all parameters, the description adds crucial meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the specified text, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This bridges the schema fields to the actual workflow.

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 verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Martyn's Law Cost.' It immediately clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and lays out the two-step process, making the tool's role unmistakable relative to the enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use instructions for both steps: call with answers and consent=true in step 1, then call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token in step 2 only if the person agrees. It also tells the agent to show the summary and consent line to the person, which is clear interaction guidance.

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