site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method, and it clarifies that nothing is bought/ordered/paid and no quote is guaranteed. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'Read first' implies safety. The description is transparent about both its own behavior and submit_enquiry's behavior.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the critical guidance ('Read first') and then delivers a concise, informative explanation of what the tool returns and what submit_enquiry does not do. 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and its role as a meta-description, the description covers the essential points: what it returns, what it clarifies, and the context (Metal Fabrication Quotes). It lacks an explicit return format, but that is not critical for a descriptive tool and would be redundant given the stated content.

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 there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when no parameters exist. The description does not need to add parameter details since the schema is trivially complete.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Metal Fabrication Quotes. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the 'Read first' documentation tool, while submit_enquiry is the action and enquiry_fields likely provides fields. The verb 'states' and resource 'what submit_enquiry does' are specific.

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 phrase 'Read first' gives explicit guidance to call this tool before using submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what submit_enquiry does not do (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free), which helps the agent decide when to use the alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to enquiry_fields.

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 clearly describes the output contents (field metadata) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, side-effect-free operation. Since the nature of the tool is purely informational, this is not misleading, but it leaves the safety profile implicit.

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 two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and lists the field attributes; the second provides a direct usage hint. It is efficient and immediately actionable.

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 metadata tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains what the tool returns, the scope (Metal Fabrication Quotes enquiry), and how to use the result. It does not specify the output format (e.g., array of objects), but the listed attributes give sufficient context for an agent to interpret the result.

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 no parameters, so the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by explaining what the output will contain, which is more relevant to the result than to parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics further.

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 (returns) and resource (fields of the Metal Fabrication Quotes enquiry) and enumerates the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It clearly distinguishes from siblings: it describes field definitions, not the enquiry process itself (enquiry_describe) nor submission (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?

The description explicitly connects usage to submit_enquiry ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), implying this tool is a prerequisite for constructing answers. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against enquiry_describe, so some inference is left to the agent.

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 behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, that contact details go to up to three named UK fabricators, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. These side effects and the consent requirement are exactly what an agent needs and cannot get from the schema.

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-loads purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then walks the two steps in order, so it reads well. It is long and re-quotes the full consent sentence verbatim from the schema, which is redundant, though arguably justified since the agent must show that exact line to the person.

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 describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 triggers (submission plus a verification email). Combined with the consent semantics, an agent has everything needed to drive the 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers must be keyed by the field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both calls, and confirmation is only supplied on the second call after approval. It also explains that the token originates from step 1's response, which the schema does not convey.

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 and resource (submits an enquiry to Metal Fabrication Quotes) and immediately bounds what it is NOT: a purchase or a guaranteed quote. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling enquiry_fields by naming it as the source of the field keys used in the answers object.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true to validate and obtain a token, Step 2 call again only after the person agrees. The gating condition for the second call and the 'not a purchase' caveat leave nothing to inference.

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