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, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals the two-call commitment mechanism, the consent requirement with exact wording, the email verification step, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the recipient clicks the link.

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 every sentence adds essential operational detail. It is front-loaded with the core action and non-purchase caveat, then structured clearly into Step 1 and Step 2, which is appropriate for a multi-step tool.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it explains validation outputs, the confirmation token, the email click requirement, consent semantics, and references enquiry_fields for answer keys. An agent has everything needed to execute the full workflow 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying each parameter to the workflow: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent requires exact agreement text, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and reused in step 2. This makes parameter usage unambiguous.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry'), a concrete resource ('Metal Fabrication Quotes'), and the key qualifier that it is not a purchase or a guaranteed quote. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools by establishing the operation's scope and constraints.

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 lays out a two-step procedure with clear conditions: step 1 validates and returns a token; step 2 is only performed if the person agrees, using the same answers and the confirmation token. It also states exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), giving the agent firm when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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