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, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, what Step 1 returns, that Step 2 triggers an email requiring a link click before providers see anything, that up to three firms are chosen by Plant Hire Rates, and that the person can stop further firms. This is a dense, non-obvious behavioral profile absent from any structured field.

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 the critical 'NOT a purchase' negation, then logically ordered Step 1 / Step 2. It is lengthy because the consent text is quoted verbatim, which duplicates the schema's consent description and slightly taxes conciseness, but nearly every sentence earns its place for a two-phase mutation.

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, and the description compensates fully by naming what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what Step 2 causes (email with a click-through link gating provider visibility). For a multi-step consent-sensitive tool with a nested answers object, nothing an agent needs to proceed 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it says 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (cross-tool linkage the schema cannot express) and clarifies 'confirmation' is the token returned in Step 1. Only minor added detail on the consent boolean beyond repeating its schema text.

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 the specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Plant Hire Rates') and immediately bounds it ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The distinction from the sibling tools (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe) is implicit via the field-key reference, and an agent can identify this as the terminal submission action without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly lays out when to call in Step 1 (with answers + consent=true) and when to call again in Step 2 (only if the person agrees, with answers + consent + confirmation token). It also specifies the intermediate obligation to show the summary and consent line, which is real routing guidance, not just context.

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