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, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the two-phase submission, the token gate, that submission triggers an email the recipient must click before any provider sees the data, that a provider never receives data before confirmation, and the exact scope of consent. These are exactly the side-effect details an agent cannot infer 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?

Purpose and the prohibition are front-loaded, and the step-by-step structure is easy to follow. The lengthy verbatim consent quote duplicates the schema's consent description, which is some redundancy, though the legal context partially justifies it.

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?

Despite there being no output schema and a nested object parameter, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submitted enquiry plus a verification email). An agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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 meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (routing the agent to a sibling tool for valid keys), and 'confirmation' is specifically the token returned by step 1 after the person approves the summary. The consent parameter's meaning is repeated verbatim from the schema, so no further value is added there.

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 Noise Assessment Cost') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This clearly separates it from siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are read-only metadata 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the exact trigger for each call: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the returned confirmation token. It also states the sequence behaviourally (show the person the summary and consent line before proceeding), leaving nothing to inference.

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