site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well: it states that the linked action starts an enquiry with human providers, involves no purchase or payment, is free, and does not guarantee a quote. It also lists what information is returned, including recipients, 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 compact and front-loaded with the 'Read first' directive and the core purpose. Some minor redundancy exists with the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' phrasing, but each sentence still 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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it tells the agent when to use it, what it explains, what behavioral caveats exist, and what information is returned. An agent would have enough context to invoke it correctly and understand the result.

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 contains zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description instead adds value by explaining what the tool conveys and returns, which is the relevant semantic content for this 0-parameter informational tool.

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 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Probate Costs', giving it a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the submit_enquiry sibling by framing itself as the explanatory 'read first' tool rather than the action-taking one.

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 directive 'Read first' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before proceeding, likely before calling submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the ordering guidance is clear enough for basic routing.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It does so by specifying exactly what the tool returns: all fields with key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. The zero-parameter signature also makes it evident this is a read-only lookup, and the description adds detail about the response contents rather than leaving them to inference.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core claim ('Every field of the Probate Costs enquiry') and then lists the relevant attributes. The second sentence adds actionable guidance without fluff. Every clause earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what data is returned and how it should be consumed by submit_enquiry. The mention of 'allowed options where there are any' covers optionality in the response. There are no unexplained inputs or unexplained outputs that would prevent an agent from using the 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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document in terms of inputs. The schema coverage is effectively 100% because the schema is empty. The baseline of 4 applies here since parameter semantics are moot and the description correctly focuses on the output contract 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 identifies the resource: every field of the Probate Costs enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It goes beyond the title by enumerating the exact data returned, making the tool's purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, relying on the reader to infer the difference.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent how to use the returned data and connects the tool to a sibling workflow. It does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe, but the purpose is clear enough that the usage context is reasonably well defined.

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 so: it states validation behavior and return contents for step 1, the side effect of submission in step 2, and the downstream double opt-in (email link must be clicked before any provider sees it). It also rules out purchase/quote semantics, which an agent could otherwise assume.

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-loads the most important disambiguation (not a purchase) and structures the body as step 1 / step 2, which is easy to follow. The full consent quotation is duplicated from the schema, which is some wasted length, but it is defensible since the agent must display that exact line.

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 step-in for return values by describing the step 1 response (summary, consent line, token) and the step 2 outcome (submitted enquiry plus confirmation email). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and only used after approval. The consent semantics are restated verbatim from the schema, adding little beyond the structured field.

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 Probate Costs") and immediately disambiguates scope with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." The two-step framing makes it clearly distinct from the sibling enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe tools.

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 explicit when-to-use instructions for each step: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, step 2 only "if the person agrees," with the same answers plus the token. It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so the agent knows the intended call order.

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