site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the process is free, and it describes the returned content: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that enquiry_describe itself is side-effect-free, but 'states' and 'returns' strongly imply a read-only explanation tool.

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 'Read first,' and each sentence contributes useful information about the enquiry flow and return content. Some redundancy exists with the title's 'not a purchase' wording, but the description itself is tight and readable.

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 no-parameter informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, key expectations, and the sequence cue 'Read first.' It would be more complete with explicit mention of alternative tools such as enquiry_fields, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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 and 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully handles parameter documentation. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.

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 an informational tool: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns explanatory content. It distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and names the related submit_enquiry flow, though it does not sharply define itself against the sibling enquiry_fields tool.

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' implies the tool should be used before acting or before submit_enquiry, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling enquiry_fields is not mentioned, so an agent gets only an implicit routing signal.

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 discloses what the tool returns and implies a read-only metadata operation by saying answers should be passed to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that no submission occurs, but the text strongly implies it.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and the content of the returned fields, then closes with a practical usage pointer. No words are wasted.

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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists what fields are included, notes optional allowed values, and tells the agent how to use the result with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that field keys are the intended keys for submit_enquiry answers, even though there are no input parameters to document.

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 ('Racking Inspection Cost enquiry') and the exact contents returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by directing answers to that sibling, so the agent can tell which tool to use.

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 useful context: read this tool's fields, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This makes the workflow clear, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when to prefer one sibling over the other.

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 fully discloses the two-step stateful behavior: validation on first call, showing the summary and consent line, requiring the confirmation token on the second call, and the email-link step before providers see anything. It also defines the exact consent wording, leaving no important behavioral ambiguity.

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 structured into clear Step 1 and Step 2 phases, front-loads the essential caveats, and includes the consent wording verbatim. Every sentence carries necessary workflow information with no padding.

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 the tool's complexity, absence of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is complete: it explains what each step returns, what the agent should show the person, when to proceed, and the email confirmation expectation. No critical calling context 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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent requires the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and reused only after person approval. This clarifies how the parameters fit together in the workflow.

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 a concrete action ('submits an enquiry'), a specific resource ('Racking Inspection Cost'), and explicitly clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also frames the two-step nature, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools enquiry_describe 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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance through the two-step process and states exclusions ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'). It references enquiry_fields for field keys, but does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when to use that sibling instead.

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