site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it states the tool returns a plain-language explanation, explicitly denies any purchase/payment/guarantee, and enumerates the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not explicitly state that calling the tool itself has no side effects, but the describe-and-return framing makes that evident.

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 instruction 'Read first.' Each sentence adds distinct value: what the tool explains, the non-transactional caveat, and the exact return contents. No filler or repetition within the description.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description gives everything an agent needs: purpose, relationship to submit_enquiry, safety-relevant caveats, and a concrete list of returned details. There is no obvious missing context.

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 schema already fully covers the input surface (100% coverage). The description adds useful context about what will be returned, which is the relevant semantic information for a parameterless info 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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and names the exact resource it explains: what submit_enquiry does on Recruitment Agency Fees. It also clarifies the non-transactional nature ('Nothing is bought... free'), which distinguishes this informational tool from the sibling submit_enquiry 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 opening 'Read first' is an explicit usage directive that tells the agent to consult this before acting. It clearly positions the tool as the explanatory companion to submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does so by spelling out the shape of the returned records (field attributes and allowed options). It implicitly frames the tool as a read-only discovery step paired with submit_enquiry. It omits any statement about auth, caching, or errors, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: return contents first, then the consumption instruction, then the parameter note. No filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents, the calling pattern, and the parameter's effect. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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% and the single parameter has an enum, so the schema already documents 'form'. The description still adds meaning by explaining that form selects a guide's own form for a different reader and that omitting it yields the site's main form — practical semantics beyond the schema text.

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 specific resource (the Recruitment Agency Fees enquiry's fields) and enumerates exactly what it returns: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. It is clearly distinguishable from submit_enquiry, which it references. The verb is implicit (a lookup/list), and sibling enquiry_describe is never mentioned, so it stops short of a 5.

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 concrete downstream guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, and omit the form parameter for the site's main form. That establishes clear context for calling it and how its output is consumed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, so no exclusions are 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 well: it discloses validation, returned summary/consent line/token, email verification before providers see details, and data sharing to up to three agencies with opt-out. This gives strong side-effect and consent context for a submission 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 front-loads purpose and the two-step process, and the step structure makes it easy to follow. It is somewhat long because it repeats full consent wording and adds a parenthetical form note, though most of that length is justified by the legal/consent disclosure.

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 coverage, yet the description explains what Step 1 returns, what Step 2 does, and the email-link verification flow before providers can see the enquiry. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in both steps.

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 workflow meaning by clarifying that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that Step 2 reuses the same answers plus the confirmation token. It does not add much beyond the schema for the form parameter, but it meaningfully clarifies how confirmation is used.

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 Recruitment Agency Fees, explicitly not a purchase or guaranteed quote, and frames the two-step process. An agent can distinguish this from enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe because those fetch form metadata while this submits the enquiry.

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 step-by-step usage: Step 1 call with answers and consent=true, then show the summary and consent line; Step 2 only after the person agrees, with the same answers and confirmation token. It also points to enquiry_fields as the source of field keys.

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