site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It transparently states what the tool returns ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms') and clarifies the underlying process ('it is free; no quote is guaranteed'). It stops short of explicitly declaring the tool itself read-only, but the framing 'States plainly what...' strongly implies no side effects.

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 with the two-word imperative 'Read first.' front-loaded, followed by purpose and then return details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or filler.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, the context (Measured Survey Cost), the return contents (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), and the important caveats (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote). Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it 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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter-level meaning to add. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for the no-parameter case, and the description correctly spends no space on inputs.

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-resource relationship: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Measured Survey Cost.' The title reinforces the scope by contrasting 'an ENQUIRY with a human' with 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' which distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling submit_enquiry.

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' is an explicit ordering cue that places this tool before submit_enquiry, and the emphasis that 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid' signals a safe, no-commitment understanding step. It does not explicitly name enquiry_fields as the alternative for collecting fields, so exclusions are implied rather than stated.

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 burden and states the tool returns every field and its attributes, which is a clear behavioral description. It doesn't mention side effects, but a field-listing operation has none implied. It doesn't discuss auth/rate limits, a minor omission for a presumably safe query.

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, no filler. First sentence lists the payload, second sentence gives a forward pointer to submitting answers.

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, but the description enumerates exactly what the response will contain and how the field keys are meant to be used in submit_enquiry. Since there are no parameters, any agent can invoke it successfully from this definition.

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 properties, so there are no parameters to explain. Per baseline for 0-param tools, this is fully adequate.

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 resource ('Measured Survey Cost enquiry') and enumerates the exact components returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), making its function unmistakable. It also links to submit_enquiry, setting it apart from the submission 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?

The statement 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives a clear usage context: call this before submitting to learn valid keys. It doesn't explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of fully explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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 does so well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line, and token; that submission only occurs in step 2; that an email with a click-link is sent; and that providers see the enquiry only after the click. This far exceeds a generic 'submits'.

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 dense but structured with explicit 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' markers, and every sentence adds necessary operational detail. The title front-loads the key caveats ('two steps; not a purchase'). Nothing is wasted.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it specifies what step 1 returns, what triggers step 2, what side effects occur (email, provider visibility), and the exact consent text. An agent has everything needed to handle the human-in-the-loop flow correctly.

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%, and the description adds meaningful process semantics: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields, consent must match the quoted consent line, and the optional confirmation field is the token from step 1. This resolves real ambiguity about when and how each parameter is used.

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 concrete action and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Measured Survey Cost', and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' Even without naming sibling tools, the two-step submission purpose is clearly distinct from enquiry_describe and 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?

Provides explicit call sequencing: Step 1 with answers+consent, then Step 2 with answers+consent+confirmation token only after the person approves. It also states exclusions ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote') and the human-approval condition. It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so not a 5.

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