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 specific information (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method) and clarifies that nothing is purchased, ordered, or guaranteed, which is transparent about its informational nature. It doesn't explicitly state it has no side effects, but the descriptive role implies safety.

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 and front-loads the core purpose ('Read first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does...'). It lists key facts efficiently without fluff. While it could be trimmed, each clause carries meaningful content, so it earns a strong score.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains the tool's role, what it returns, and the context of the associated submission process. An agent would know exactly what to expect and when to use it. Nothing essential 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 the instructions set a baseline of 4 for such cases. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none, but it does describe what the tool returns, which indirectly clarifies what callers can expect. No compensation needed.

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 that the tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Motor Rewind Cost, naming the exact resource and behavior. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on explanation rather than action, making its purpose unambiguous.

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' implies the tool should be used before submitting an enquiry, providing a clear directive. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the context of siblings (enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry) makes it obvious this is a preparatory tool, so the guidance is adequate.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It explains what data the tool exposes and hints that it is a metadata lookup, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response shape, or mention any side effects. The absence of side-effect disclosure is a moderate gap.

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 that front-loads the tool's purpose, enumerates the returned metadata attributes, and closes with a practical pointer to submit_enquiry. Every clause adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 no-parameter metadata query, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what field attributes will be available, which is sufficient for using the result with submit_enquiry. It does not specify the exact output representation, but given the absence of an output schema, the description covers the essential information.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about inputs. The baseline of 4 applies: the description correctly stays focused on the output for this 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 identifies the resource ('Every field of the Motor Rewind Cost enquiry') and enumerates what is included: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by stating that answers should be keyed by field key, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists'.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: when you need the field structure of the enquiry. It also explicitly connects to submit_enquiry by instructing that answers should be passed keyed by field key, but it does not contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool.

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 it well. It discloses the two-step nature, validation, consent meaning, confirmation-token requirement, and the critical behavior that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the emailed link. It leaves out the exact step-two return shape, but for this workflow the state-change and prerequisite behavior are thoroughly explained.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and exclusions, then walks through the two steps in order. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler and the structure mirrors the actual call flow.

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, consent-gated submission tool with no output schema, the description covers almost everything an agent needs: validation, token handoff, consent wording, email activation, and the 'not a quote' caveat. It does not describe failure/edge-case behavior or explicitly point to sibling tools for fetching fields/descriptions, but it is close to complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: answers are tied to field keys from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact consent line, and the confirmation token is tied to the step-one summary approval. This linkage makes the three parameters' roles in the flow clear.

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 uses a specific verb ('submits') and a clear resource ('Motor Rewind Cost enquiry'), then sharpens the purpose with explicit negatives: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This makes the tool's role immediately distinct from what it is not, and it is clearly differentiated from sibling enquiry_* tools by name and scope.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary/consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, including the confirmation token. It also states the consent condition and the email-link step. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools (enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields) or when to use them first, but the procedural guidance is otherwise very clear.

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