site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also discloses what the returned content includes, such as who receives the details and the consent wording. It stops short of explicitly saying the tool itself performs no mutations, but the explanatory framing makes this reasonably 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 compact and front-loaded with the most important guidance, 'Read first.' Every sentence adds value: what the enquiry is, what it is not, and what the returned description contains. There is no filler or redundant 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 no-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it returns and why it matters. It names the core product behavior, the key exclusions (no purchase, no guarantee), and the specific return elements, so an agent can correctly choose and invoke the tool.

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 schema is empty with full coverage, so parameter-level documentation is unnecessary. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return content rather than parameters, leaving no semantic gap.

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 enquiry_describe explains what submit_enquiry does on Party Wall Quotes, including that it starts an enquiry with human providers. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the 'read first' explanatory tool, though it does not explicitly address how it differs from enquiry_fields.

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 directive 'Read first' clearly signals that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry, and the description frames it as the plain-language explanation of that sibling tool. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from the other siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does this well by specifying exactly what information is returned and its scope ('Every field'). As a non-mutating metadata/introspection tool, side effects are unlikely, and nothing in the description suggests otherwise.

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: the first sentence defines the tool's scope and output content, while the second sentence provides actionable usage guidance. No words are 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key facts: what fields are returned and how those field keys connect to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly position itself against enquiry_describe, but the field-specific content is sufficient for an agent to make a correct selection.

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 there is no parameter documentation burden; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful cross-tool context by clarifying that the field keys returned here are the same keys 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 Party Wall Quotes enquiry') and enumerates the exact attributes returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'Returns' or 'Lists,' and it does not directly distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, though the field-level scope is apparent.

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 instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key implies this tool is useful for discovering the fields needed for submission. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or provide exclusion criteria, so usage guidance remains mostly inferred.

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 disclosure burden. It excellently discloses the two-step behavior, validation on step 1, returned summary/confirmation token, email notification, and the critical fact that no provider sees the enquiry until the person clicks the emailed link. It also includes the exact consent wording and the 'not a purchase' caveat.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and non-purchase caveat, then proceeds through the two steps in logical order. It is longer than the typical tool description, but almost every sentence carries critical operational information. It could be tightened slightly, but the length is justified by the two-step complexity.

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 complexity, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return values of step 1, the conditional step 2, the email and link behavior, provider visibility, and the exact consent line. An agent has everything needed to correctly sequence calls and avoid prematurely submitting an enquiry.

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 already covers all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that confirmation is the token returned in step 1, and that consent must reflect the quoted agreement. This goes beyond the schema description but does not need to compensate for a coverage gap.

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 Party Wall Quotes') and clearly distinguishes what the tool is NOT: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also frames the two-step submission flow, making it easy to tell apart from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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?

The description gives an explicit step-by-step usage protocol: call with answers and consent to get a token, then call again with the token only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields as the source of field keys. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use the tool, so it stops just short of full alternative-routing guidance.

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