site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free, which prevents the agent from assuming this tool initiates a purchase. It also discloses what the return content covers: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation 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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first.' Every sentence earns its place: scope, exclusions, cost, and return contents are all covered 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 no-input, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, the non-transactional boundaries, and the nature of its return content. The only minor gap is not explicitly distinguishing this tool from enquiry_fields, though the purpose is still clear enough for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 document. Per the rubric, zero parameters gives a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately adds no misleading parameter-related claims.

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 purpose: it is a plain-language explanation of what submit_enquiry does, rather than the action itself. The phrase 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' gives a clear verb and resource, and it differentiates this tool from the sibling submit_enquiry by framing itself as descriptive, not transactional.

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' gives clear contextual guidance: an agent should consume this before acting on the enquiry workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the directive is strong enough to imply precedence over submit_enquiry.

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. It reveals the data content and implies a read-only listing, but it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no authentication, or returns a snapshot. It doesn't contradict annotations (there are none), so not a contradiction, but behavioral disclosure is only 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the resource ('Every field of the Noise Assessment Cost enquiry') and packs the content list plus a usage pointer. It is slightly listy but contains no fluff or repetition.

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 simple zero-parameter metadata tool, the description covers what to expect and how to connect with submit_enquiry. It doesn't specify the exact return shape (array vs. object) or clarify the role of enquiry_describe, but these are minor gaps given the simplicity.

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 zero parameters, and the empty input schema covers 100% of parameter definitions, meeting the baseline for no-param tools. The description adds no parameter-level detail because none is needed, and it reinforces the meaning of 'field key' for the downstream submit_enquiry 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 Noise Assessment Cost enquiry' and enumerates what is included (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It differentiates from submit_enquiry by noting answers should be passed there keyed by field key, though it lacks an explicit action verb like '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?

The description provides clear context: this tool exposes field metadata, and the pointer 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' indicates a follow-up workflow. It does not explicitly discuss when to use this versus enquiry_describe, so alternative routing is incomplete.

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 it delivers: it discloses validation, the summary and consent line returned in step 1, the confirmation token requirement, the email with a click link, and the exact consent wording. It also states that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks the link, which is important behavioral context.

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 segment earns its place: the non-purchase clarification, the consent text, the two-step sequence, and the email-link condition. It is front-loaded with the tool's essential purpose before moving into procedural details.

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?

The description fully covers the two-step workflow, what each call returns, when the second call is appropriate, and the post-submission email step. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values and side effects an agent needs to know.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only when the person agrees to the quoted consent text, and confirmation is the step-1 token. This clarifies the relationship and sequencing of the parameters beyond the schema alone.

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 that this tool submits an enquiry to human providers, and explicitly distinguishes the action from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also positions the tool relative to the two-step submission flow, making the 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 description gives an explicit two-step usage procedure: call first with answers and consent to get a summary and token, then call again with the token only after the person agrees. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields as alternatives, but the operational guidance for this tool is exceptionally clear.

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