site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does disclose key behavioral traits: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns recipients, consent wording, and confirmation details. It lacks operational specifics like auth or rate limits, but for a read-only descriptive tool the disclosure is substantial.

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 short and front-loads the 'Read first' directive. It is slightly awkwardly phrased ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does...') but contains no filler and every sentence contributes relevant context.

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, so the description must explain what is returned; it does so by naming the recipients, consent wording, and confirmation process. Combined with the constraints (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free), this is nearly complete for a simple zero-parameter describe tool.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful gap. Baseline 4 applies because the schema is empty and the description need not document any inputs.

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 identifies the resource (an enquiry with human providers who quote directly) and distinguishes it from the action tool submit_enquiry by framing this as a descriptive, read-first tool. However, it describes what submit_enquiry does rather than stating its own purpose as directly as it could, so an agent must infer that enquiry_describe returns explanatory content.

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' gives an explicit ordering cue relative to submit_enquiry, which is useful usage context. But it does not name alternatives such as enquiry_fields or specify when not to use this tool, leaving broader routing to inference.

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 disclosure burden, and it does describe the returned content shape (key, label, type, required, help text, options), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states that the call is side-effect free/read-only, whether fields are static or configurable, or how the response is structured (list vs object), so key behavioral traits remain implicit.

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 compact sentences with the content of the response front-loaded and no filler. The opening phrase ('Every field of the SEO for architecture firm enquiry') is slightly awkward and domain-jargon heavy, but it is efficient overall.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description effectively substitutes as a prose description of the return structure and points to the follow-up tool. It is nearly complete; only the response container shape and read-only guarantee are left unstated.

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 the baseline is 4; there are no argument semantics needed. The description does add one semantic instruction about the output keys being the identifiers to use in submit_enquiry, which is useful downstream context.

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 resource precisely ('Every field of the ... enquiry') and enumerates what it exposes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), so an agent knows this returns the enquiry's field metadata. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, but it does connect to submit_enquiry as the consumer of its output.

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 actionable workflow context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent this is the discovery step whose keys feed submit_enquiry. There are no explicit exclusions or a statement of when NOT to use it, and no comparison with enquiry_describe.

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 largely meets it: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double opt-in email click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent sentence. It doesn't cover failure modes (what happens if validation rejects answers, or whether a step-1 call is safely repeatable), which keeps it short of 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?

Purpose and the 'not a purchase' warning are front-loaded, and every sentence carries operational detail. It is dense and slightly run-on (long em-dash clause ending in an awkward literal such as 'SEOs for architecture firm'), but nothing is 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing exactly what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 triggers (email with a click-through link). For a nested-answers, multi-call tool with no annotations, this is complete enough to execute 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond per-field docs by tying the parameters into a workflow: answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', consent must be true, and the confirmation token is only supplied on the step-2 call after the summary is approved.

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+resource (submit an enquiry to human providers) and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the returned token. The gating condition and the sequencing are spelled out, leaving no ambiguity about when each call is legitimate.

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