site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the return content includes recipients, consent wording, and confirmation mechanics. It stops short of explicitly saying 'this tool itself has no side effects,' but 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' make the informational nature clear.

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 concise and front-loaded: 'Read first' immediately signals intent, followed by a compact explanation of the tool's purpose, exclusions, free status, and return contents. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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 parameterless tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It tells the agent what the tool is for, why it should be read first, what the enquiry experience entails, and what information will be returned. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation and understanding.

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 parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than on parameters, and no additional parameter documentation is needed for a parameterless 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 states what the tool does: it is a 'read first' description of what submit_enquiry does, contrasting an enquiry with a human against a purchase, order, or guaranteed quote. The title and description together distinguish it from the sibling submit_enquiry action by clarifying this tool is informational rather than action-oriented.

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 usage directive, telling the agent to consult this tool before submitting an enquiry. It also clarifies what submit_enquiry will and will not do, helping the agent avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly name enquiry_fields or describe the exact circumstances when this tool should be skipped.

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 provides substantive behavioral detail by enumerating exactly what the tool exposes for each field and noting that options are included only where they exist. The instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry clarifies that this is a non-submitting retrieval of field metadata.

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 one efficient sentence plus a short, actionable pointer. Every clause adds information: the specific enquiry, the field attributes returned, the conditional nature of options, and the relationship to submit_enquiry. No 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?

Given the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the enquiry, lists the returned attributes, and tells the agent how to use the results. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys are the values to use when calling 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 Mezzanine Floor Cost enquiry') and specifies the exact contents returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', so it stops just short of the strongest purpose statement.

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 guidance 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies the tool is a precursor to submission, but it does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_fields versus enquiry_describe or submit_enquiry. The usage context is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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: step 1 is non-destructive validation returning a summary, consent line and token; step 2 is the actual submission; a confirmation email gates provider visibility. It also spells out exactly what consent authorises, which is the ethically critical behavior 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?

Front-loads the critical 'NOT a purchase' warning and walks the two steps in order without wasted framing. Slightly penalised because the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim and already appears in the schema's consent description, adding length without new information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 triggers (submission plus a confirmation email). Nothing an agent needs to sequence the two calls correctly 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 all three parameters (answers, consent, confirmation) are already documented inline, including the confirmation token's origin. The description adds the flow-level relationship between the token from step 1 and its reuse in step 2, but does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Mezzanine Floor Cost') and immediately scopes it with a negative definition ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which prevents the most likely misclassification. The two-step nature and the named siblings' domain (enquiry_fields for answers) make it separable from the inspection tools.

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?

Explicitly states when to call each mode: step 1 with answers and consent=true to validate, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also gives the gating condition for downstream visibility (the person must click the emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry).

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