site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well by stating that nothing is bought, ordered, paid, or guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also discloses what the tool returns: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly say the describe tool itself has no side effects, though the wording strongly implies it.

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 only three sentences and front-loads the most important usage instruction ('Read first'). Every sentence contributes either the tool's purpose, the key disclaimers, or the return contents, with no filler or unnecessary technical detail.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what the tool does, what it clarifies, and what it returns. It is nearly complete, but it does not position itself relative to enquiry_fields, leaving the sibling relationship to be inferred from context signals rather than the description.

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 is empty and has 100% description coverage, so there are no parameters to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description still adds context about the output contents, which helps set expectations even though no parameters are involved.

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 ('states') and identifies the exact resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Patent Attorney Cost'), making it clear this is an informational tool rather than the submission action itself. It explains the core facts of the enquiry process, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool enquiry_fields, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 tells the agent to use this tool before submit_enquiry, establishing the intended sequencing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or directly contrast it with enquiry_fields, leaving some usage context implicit.

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 behavioral disclosure. It explicitly enumerates the output contents (key, label, type, required, help text, options), and the absence of parameters implies a read-only lookup. It does not mention potential side effects, but none are suggested.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first front-loads the exact content returned, the second connects to submit_enquiry. No wasted words or redundant schema 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fully covers what the agent can expect and how to use the result. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters to describe. The description focuses on the output and the next action, which is appropriate 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 names a specific verb-and-resource: it lists every field of the Patent Attorney Cost enquiry, enumerating the field attributes returned. This clearly differentiates it from submit_enquiry, which would accept answers, and from enquiry_describe.

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 states precisely when to use the tool (when you need to enumerate the enquiry's fields) and instructs the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as enquiry_describe, but the role 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 no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the validation-and-return behavior, the exact return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the email-verification gate before any provider sees the data, the disclosure to up to three attorneys, and the user's ability to stop further firms receiving details. This is far beyond what the schema conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the two-step flow; every sentence carries operational information. The only waste is the verbatim re-quoting of the consent text, which is already present in the schema's consent description, though restating it is defensible for a consent-critical tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token). For a complex, stateful, nested-object tool with a legal-consent dimension, the description supplies everything needed to call both steps 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and, crucially, that the confirmation token is only supplied on the second call after the person approves the summary — a sequencing constraint the schema alone does not express.

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 Patent Attorney Cost") and immediately fences off the two most likely misinterpretations ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so the agent can distinguish it from the other two enquiry 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: step 1 with answers+consent to validate and obtain a token, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the token. It even specifies what to show the user between steps, 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.