site

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavioral context: nothing is bought or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns recipient/consent/confirmation content. It does not state side-effect-free/read-only status explicitly, nor error or failure behavior, so coverage is partial for a zero-annotation 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?

It is short, and the 'Read first' warning is front-loaded. But the middle clause ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does on SEO company for small business') is awkward, mixes the sibling's function into this tool's description, and reads like injected filler rather than earning 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must cover both purpose and return content, and it does name the returned material (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation process) plus the non-purchase guarantees. That is sufficient for a simple zero-param informational tool, though it stops short of describing output structure.

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 and there is no parameter semantics to add. The description correctly implies no input is required.

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 frames the tool as an explanatory/informational resource ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does... also returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms'), so an agent can infer it returns documentation rather than performing an action. However, the phrasing is convoluted and describes the sibling's behavior as much as its own, and it never contrasts itself with enquiry_fields or submit_enquiry by name. Purpose is discernible but not stated as a clean verb+resource.

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?

'Read first' gives a sequencing hint that this should be consulted before submit_enquiry, which is genuine usage guidance. But there are no explicit when-not conditions and no routing between this tool and enquiry_fields, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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 does so well: it specifies exactly what each field record contains, including help text and allowed options. It omits auth/rate-limit or caching behavior, but for a static form-metadata read that is a minor gap.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the actionable follow-up. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return shape and the intended next step (submitting answers keyed by field key). Nothing an agent needs to invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 resource – every field of the SEO company for small business enquiry – and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), so an agent knows this is a field-definition lookup. The verb is implicit (the title 'The questions the enquiry asks' carries some of the load), and it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_describe, keeping it 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 supplies clear downstream context: call this to learn the field keys, then 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' That tells the agent the workflow position of this tool relative to submit_enquiry. It stops short of a 5 because it never states when to prefer this over the sibling enquiry_describe or any exclusion.

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 the two-step gating, that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, and that a provider never sees the enquiry until the person clicks the emailed link. It also spells out what consent semantically means, which is unusual and valuable disclosure.

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-loaded with the core purpose and the 'NOT a purchase' caveat, then walks through step 1, step 2, and the consent definition in order. It is long for a tool description and the consent sentence duplicates the schema's consent description verbatim, but the length is largely earned by the non-obvious two-step protocol.

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 mutation-style tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle an agent needs: required inputs, the validation step and its return shape, the token handoff, the actual submission, and the downstream email-verification gate. Nothing needed to invoke 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the flat schema: it explains that 'answers' are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, and that 'confirmation' must come from a prior step-1 call and is only used on the second invocation. That ordering constraint is not conveyed by the schema's property list alone.

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 SEO company for small business') and immediately draws the boundary that it is 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can tell exactly what this does and what it is not, and the reference to enquiry_fields ties it to the right helper 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?

Gives an explicit two-call protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 with the same answers plus the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also states the pre-condition (person must approve the summary) and the post-condition (email link click before providers see it), leaving nothing to inference.

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