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 disclose meaningful behavioral facts: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free — directly answering an agent's concern about whether calling this commits to anything. It stops short of stating operational traits like read-only status or idempotence explicitly, but the implied safe-read framing is adequate.

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 "Read first." and compact at three sentences. Slight redundancy and awkward phrasing ("States plainly what submit_enquiry does on PPC marketing company") cost it the top mark.

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 reader with no output schema, the description compensates by describing what is returned: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. That covers the return content well, though it could state outright that the output is static explanatory text.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a parameterless, informational call.

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 makes clear this is a read tool that returns an explanation of what submit_enquiry does (an enquiry with human providers, no purchase, no guaranteed quote). The verb/resource is conveyed, but it references only submit_enquiry and never distinguishes itself from enquiry_fields, so sibling differentiation is incomplete.

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" is an explicit ordering cue telling the agent to consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It gives clear context for use but names no exclusions or alternatives among the siblings.

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 behavioral burden. It does disclose the content of the return payload (the field metadata attributes), which is the main behavioral fact for a read-only lookup. But it says nothing about response shape/structure, ordering, whether results are static, or any auth/caching behavior.

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 resource and the returned attributes, with the workflow instruction placed second. Every clause carries information; the only nit is that the submit_enquiry routing sentence blends usage instruction into an otherwise descriptive definition.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must convey the return content, and it does so adequately by enumerating the field metadata. For a zero-parameter read lookup it is nearly complete, though it omits any note on response format or how the returned options constrain valid answers.

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 takes zero input parameters, so there is no per-parameter meaning to add and the baseline is 4. The description's reference to 'field key' usefully explains the key concept reused by submit_enquiry, but that is an output/adjacent-tool concept rather than an input parameter.

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 names the specific resource (every field of the PPC marketing company enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. That is a concrete, non-tautological statement of what the tool returns. It does not, however, draw a line between this tool and the sibling enquiry_describe, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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 a clear downstream workflow cue: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent this is a lookup step that feeds submit_enquiry. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of how it relates to enquiry_describe, so alternatives are not fully covered.

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, the returned summary/consent line/token, that consent is a legally meaningful affirmation, and that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry. These are non-obvious runtime behaviors an agent must know to drive the flow correctly.

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 purpose and the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then ordered step 1 → step 2 → consent definition. Dense but every clause carries operational information; no filler or 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 two-phase mutation with a nested answers object and no output schema, the description still explains what step 1 returns and what the end state is (email link, provider visibility). Nothing needed to call either step correctly 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key obtained from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, and 'confirmation' is specifically the token from step 1 used only after approval and with the same answers. This exceeds what the schema text conveys.

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 PPC marketing company') and immediately delimits scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This is unambiguous against siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which are referenced by name for the field-key source.

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 to validate, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. It states the precondition (person agrees / has read the consent line) and what must be shown to the person before proceeding, leaving nothing to inference.

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