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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers extensively: the two-step validate-then-submit flow, the requirement to show the person the summary and consent line, and the email-with-link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. It even discloses the precise consent wording, making the tool's side effects and user-facing obligations fully transparent.

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 dense but well organized around Step 1/Step 2, with the core purpose and exclusions front-loaded in the first sentence. The consent wording appears both in the description and the consent parameter description, a minor redundancy, but no sentence is wasted and the structure makes the two-step protocol easy to follow.

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-step, consent-gated tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input contract, the intermediate return values, the user-facing consent display requirement, and the post-submission email-link behavior needed to set user expectations. The remaining gaps — validation-failure handling and confirmation-token expiry — are minor 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that confirmation is required only on the second call and that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. This resolves the schema's potential ambiguity that confirmation is merely an optional property.

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 Probate Costs' — and immediately fences the scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also orients the tool among its siblings by referencing that answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields,' distinguishing the submit action from the describe/fields helpers.

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 provides an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line, and confirmation token; step 2 is invoked 'only if the person agrees' and includes the confirmation token. It also states exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and defines the exact consent condition that gates the call, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to invoke it.

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