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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses validation on step 1, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees it, and that details go to up to three named contractors with opt-out. That is unusually rich behavioral context for a write 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?

Front-loaded with what the tool is and is not, then the two steps in order; every clause about consent and email verification earns its place. It loses a point because the consent text is repeated verbatim in the schema's consent description, which is redundant payload.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a click-through link). Combined with the nested answers object being explained via the field-key reference, an agent has everything needed to drive the flow 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: answers must be keyed by field key from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, the same answers must be resubmitted on step 2, and confirmation only applies after approval. The consent paragraph largely restates the schema's consent description, so it is not a full 5.

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 Piling Costs") and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). An agent can distinguish this from its siblings enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening any schema.

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=true, then step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the returned confirmation token. It also names the operative precondition (consent means the person read and agreed to the quoted text), so when-not-to-call is inferable rather than guessed.

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