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 it handles this well. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool returns who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation process. This gives an agent a strong mental model of the side effects and output.

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'). The title is somewhat long, but it adds clarifying value by stating what the user gets and negating common assumptions about purchases and guaranteed quotes.

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, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the business context, what does not happen, what the user receives, and how confirmation occurs. Since no output schema exists, the explicit list of returned information covers the missing structured output.

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 parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than inventing parameter guidance that would be irrelevant.

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 this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Plant Hire Rates, distinguishing it from actually submitting an enquiry. It names the specific sibling it documents and lists the concrete information it returns, so an agent can tell it apart from submit_enquiry 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 opening 'Read first' provides a clear directive to consult this tool before acting, and the description explicitly references submit_enquiry as the operation being explained. It does not spell out a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use matrix, but the intended placement relative to its sibling 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying exactly what information is returned and how the result should be consumed by submit_enquiry. It is clearly an introspection/read-style tool, and the description gives enough context about the response contents even without an output schema.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the tool's purpose and enumerates the returned attributes; the second adds a practical usage pointer. 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?

For a simple parameterless metadata tool, the description is complete: it states what is returned, lists the attribute categories, and connects the output to the sibling submit_enquiry. It does not explain enquiry_describe, but that is not necessary for invoking this tool 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, so schema coverage is effectively complete and the description need not explain parameters. The existing note about passing answers to submit_enquiry adds useful contextual meaning beyond the empty input 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 clearly identifies the resource ('the Plant Hire Rates enquiry') and the exact data returned: 'key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options'. It is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool provides, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 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?

The description implies when to use it—whenever you need the fields of the enquiry—and explicitly ties it to submit_enquiry ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'). However, it does not state when not to use it or how it compares to enquiry_describe, leaving some routing to inference.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains validation, the returned summary and consent line, the confirmation token, the email link requirement before providers see the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent.

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 long but every sentence earns its place by conveying a necessary part of a two-step protocol. The explicit 'Step 1' and 'Step 2' structure makes the workflow easy to follow, and the important exclusions are stated at the start.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies the expected outputs of step 1, the condition for step 2, and the post-submission behavior including the email link requirement. The agent has enough information to execute the tool correctly without guessing.

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 already 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent has exact quoted wording, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1 after approval. This is far beyond a restatement of 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?

States a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Plant Hire Rates') and clearly distinguishes the tool from a purchase or guaranteed quote, which are common confusions for an enquiry tool. The two-step nature is also front-loaded in the title and reinforced in the description, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 step-by-step usage protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token, then step 2 only if the person agrees, reusing the same answers and token. It also tells the agent what not to expect ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references enquiry_fields as the source of valid answer keys.

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