site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns recipient, consent wording, and confirmation details. It does not state whether this tool itself has side effects, but the substance is strong.

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?

'Read first' front-loads correctly, but the middle sentence stacks redundant reassurances — 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' overlaps heavily with 'no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' The description also spends most of its words explaining the sibling's behavior rather than this tool's.

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, annotation-free descriptive tool with no output schema, the description covers what content is returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method) and the ordering relative to submit_enquiry. Only the missing link to enquiry_fields keeps it from being fully complete.

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, so the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to clarify.

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 this is a read-first explanatory tool that documents the enquiry flow behind submit_enquiry on SEO content marketing, and it names the sibling it relates to. An agent can tell it apart from submit_enquiry (which actually submits) though it never mentions 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?

'Read first' explicitly instructs that this tool is consulted before the submit_enquiry action, giving clear ordering context. It does not state any when-not condition or address enquiry_fields, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the return shape (the field metadata set), which partially substitutes for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, caching, error behavior, or the relationship to enquiry_describe. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the returned payload, the second gives the consumption instruction. Nothing is wasted and the resource definition 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 zero-parameter discovery tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return-value contract (field keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, allowed options) and links to submit_enquiry. The only missing piece is how it relates to enquiry_describe, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 there is nothing to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain inputs and correctly does not.

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 — every field of the SEO content marketing enquiry — and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). An agent can tell what it returns, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which is the one ambiguity.

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 clear downstream context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent when this tool fits in the workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it lacks explicit alternatives/exclusions.

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?

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does most of it: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers a verification email the person must click before any provider sees it, and exactly what consent means. It omits failure behavior (invalid or expired token, whether answers must match step 1), which is the main residual 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?

The disqualifier ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and the two steps follow in order, so the reader gets the critical framing first. It is slightly over-packed: the consent sentence appears both in the prose and in the schema, and the email-link detail is embedded mid-step rather than called out.

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, the description takes on the job of explaining returns and does so (summary, consent line, confirmation token), and it covers the nested answers object, the human confirmation gate, and the downstream email verification. Nothing an agent needs to drive the two-step flow 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 description coverage is 100%, so a 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' is only true once the person has agreed to the quoted sentence, and 'confirmation' is specifically the token returned by step 1 after approval. That sequencing context is not in the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to SEO content marketing') and immediately rules out two likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also anchors itself to the sibling enquiry_fields for the answer keys, so an agent can place it among its three siblings without opening a 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: call once with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token, then call again with the token only 'if the person agrees.' The precondition that selects each step is stated outright, and the human-in-the-loop gate is unambiguous.

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