site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method.

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 'Read first' and every sentence adds meaningful information: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. It is concise enough for a zero-input informational tool and avoids 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the non-transactional nature, the free status, and the specific return content. An agent would have enough context to invoke and interpret the result 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description need not explain parameter meanings. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters for the description to clarify, and it appropriately focuses on behavior instead.

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 the tool's purpose: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns a plain-language explanation of the enquiry process. It also distinguishes itself from the siblings by being the explanatory/read-first tool, not the actual submission tool (submit_enquiry) or field-listing tool (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 'Read first' gives a clear usage cue: this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or directly contrast it with siblings, but the context signals that it is the informational precursor to the other tools.

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 disclosure burden. It transparently specifies what the tool exposes: each field's key, label, type, whether required, help text, and options. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or describe the exact response container shape, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool this is a modest omission.

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 packs the core output contract concisely, and the second provides actionable integration guidance.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: which fields are returned, what attributes each field has, and how those keys feed into submit_enquiry. It does not spell out whether the output is an array or keyed object, nor does it compare itself to enquiry_describe, but neither gap prevents correct invocation.

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, so there are no parameters to document. The description still adds semantic value by explaining the returned field attributes and by instructing the agent to key submit_enquiry answers by field key.

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 as the fields of the Piling Costs enquiry and lists the attributes each field carries: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', but 'Every field of...' makes the operation obvious. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by telling the agent to pass answers keyed by these field keys.

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 second sentence gives concrete downstream guidance: use the returned field keys to construct answers for submit_enquiry. This implies this tool should be called before submission. However, it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool.

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. It fully discloses the two-step nature, the validation step, the returned summary/consent line/token, the email sent after the second call, and the important condition that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the email link.

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 somewhat long but well structured with explicit Step 1 and Step 2 sections and front-loaded warnings. The consent line is repeated once for clarity, and nearly every sentence adds procedural or safety-relevant information.

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 stateful, two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers both calls, required parameters, the intermediate response, and the email-link gating of provider visibility, leaving little ambiguity for an agent.

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. The description adds meaningful process context: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the exact stated line, and the confirmation parameter is the token returned from step 1. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 opens with a specific action: submitting an enquiry to Piling Costs, and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also lays out the two-step submission flow with distinct step semantics, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling tools enquiry_describe and 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 description provides explicit usage instructions: call first with answers and consent=true, show the returned summary and consent line, and only call again with the same answers and the confirmation token if the person agrees. It also warns that this is not a purchase, helping the agent avoid using the tool for a different intent.

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