site

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the enquiry is free, and it details what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is rich, honest behavioral context for a tool whose purpose is to explain another 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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the essential 'Read first', and every sentence contributes: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. There is no filler or redundant restatement.

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 descriptive tool, the description fully covers the agent's needs: it explains the tool's role, its relationship to submit_enquiry, key caveats, and the return content. No output schema exists, so the explicit enumeration of return details is especially valuable.

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 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies: parameter semantics are trivially satisfiable.

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 itself as the explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does'. It gives a specific verb/resource ('describes submit_enquiry') and distinguishes itself from the sibling action by clarifying it is not a purchase, order, or guaranteed quote. An agent can immediately understand that this is a pre-read explainer, not the action tool.

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 phrase 'Read first' gives explicit sequential guidance to use this tool before invoking submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly mention when to use enquiry_fields or provide formal when-not-to-use exclusions, but the description's framing makes the intended usage context clear.

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 burden of conveying that this is a read-only introspection tool, and it does imply that by describing the field metadata rather than any mutation. The final sentence, 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' clarifies that this tool does not itself accept or submit answers. However, it does not address output format, potential errors, or dynamic behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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 no filler. The first sentence front-loads the complete list of returned attributes, and the second sentence adds the essential workflow connection to submit_enquiry. Every word 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 that there is no output schema, the description adequately compensates by enumerating the fields an agent can expect: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It also connects the output to the sibling tool submit_enquiry, completing the practical loop. It does not describe the exact response envelope, but for a zero-parameter metadata lookup this is sufficient.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses instead on what the returned field metadata contains, which is the relevant information an agent needs. A baseline of 4 is warranted 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 identifies the resource (Oil Tank Removal Cost enquiry fields) and enumerates the exact contents returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It stops short of an explicit retrieval verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous. The mention of submit_enquiry helps distinguish it from the submission tool.

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 actionable context: an agent should use this tool to discover the field keys and then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those keys. This implicitly tells the agent when to use it and how it fits into the workflow. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or contrast it with enquiry_describe, but the usage context is clear.

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 zero annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses the two-step non-atomic behavior, the email side effect, and the material condition that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. It also states the exact consent wording that must be agreed to. An agent knows precisely what will happen and what constraints apply.

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 dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place: exclusions, step 1, step 2, consent text, and post-submission behavior. The most critical discriminator ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded, and the title summarizes the key facts. It could be improved with explicit numbering to separate step 1 from step 2, but no content is wasted.

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 having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything needed for correct execution: return values from step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the conditional trigger for step 2, the email-link gating behavior, and the exact consent text. For a high-complexity two-step tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly on the happy path 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 the schema already documents all three parameters, putting the baseline at 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that confirmation is only used in step 2 and by clarifying that answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields. This protocol context enriches the parameter semantics without contradicting the schema.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Oil Tank Removal Cost') and immediately carves out what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which prevents the agent from treating it as a transactional tool. The title reinforces the two-step nature. This is clear enough to distinguish from the enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields siblings.

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, step-by-step invocation protocol: call once with answers and consent=true to validate, show the summary/consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also names the source of answer keys ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), implicitly pointing to a sibling. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use enquiry_describe when you need to describe the enquiry,' so the routing guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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