site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the operation is free, and what the return covers (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow). It never explicitly states the tool has no side effects, but 'Read first' and the informational framing make the read-only nature clear.

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?

"Read first" is front-loaded as the key instruction and each subsequent sentence carries distinct content (what the subject is, the non-purchase guarantees, the return contents). It is slightly wordy and mixes tool behavior with content summary, but no sentence is pure filler.

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-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers both purpose and return content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), which is what an agent needs. The absence of explicit read-only language is a minor gap, but overall it is complete enough to invoke 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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only explainer ("Read first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does") and distinguishes it from the submit_enquiry sibling by describing it as documentation rather than the action itself. The verb is somewhat diffuse — 'states' and 'returns' — and it spends more words describing the subject matter than the tool's own operation, but an agent can tell what it is.

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?

"Read first" explicitly establishes ordering relative to submit_enquiry, which is named in the text, giving the agent a clear trigger for calling this before the submission tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of enquiry_fields as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 behavioral burden; it does disclose the shape of what is returned, which is the key trait here. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether the field set is static or varies by enquiry/campaign context, or what happens if an enquiry type is unknown.

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, front-loaded with the returned field inventory, with the actionable submit_enquiry linkage placed second. Minor filler ('where there are any') keeps it just short of ideal.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values and largely does by listing the field attributes. For a parameterless discovery tool this is nearly sufficient, though it omits whether the returned fields are fixed for the 'PPC for law firms' enquiry or vary by some scope.

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 schema defines zero parameters and requires none, so there is no parameter surface to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument discovery call rather than misrepresenting any inputs.

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 states a specific resource and enumerates its payload ('key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options'), so an agent knows it returns enquiry field definitions. It does not, however, clearly delineate itself from the sibling 'enquiry_describe', leaving some ambiguity about which discovery tool to call.

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 closing sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies the intended workflow and names a sibling, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no guidance on choosing between this and 'enquiry_describe'.

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 behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, explains the two-step validation/submission flow, specifies what step 1 returns, defines consent, and notes that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry.

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 appropriately sized for a two-step submission workflow with consent and email confirmation. It is front-loaded with the key distinction ('NOT a purchase') and clearly structured with Step 1 and Step 2 labels.

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 or annotation, so the description must cover return behavior and side effects; it explains the step 1 summary/token and the step 2 email link requirement. It also references the sibling tool needed to obtain field keys, making the definition complete for 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is only used in step 2 after the person approves the summary.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to PPC for law firms') and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or quote. It also makes the two-step enquiry workflow explicit, separating it from sibling tools like enquiry_fields, which it references for 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?

It gives precise when-to-use instructions: call once with answers and consent=true to validate, show the summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, with the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token. The condition for step 2 and the consent meaning are both explicit.

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