site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and it previews the returned content (recipient, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not explicitly label itself read-only, but 'Read first' plus the negative framing effectively conveys that this call has no side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'Read first' directive, and each sentence adds distinct information (what it describes, what it is not, what it returns). Slightly awkward wording around 'what submit_enquiry does on SEO for dealerships' costs it a point but there is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does name the returned elements: who receives the details, the consent wording, and the confirmation method. For a zero-parameter informational tool this is nearly complete, missing only a note on the format/length of the returned prose.

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 for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a no-input, content-returning call without inventing parameters.

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 companion that returns prose about the enquiry flow rather than performing an action: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.' It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by framing that tool in the third person, though the sibling enquiry_fields is never mentioned and the phrasing requires careful reading to see that the action belongs to submit_enquiry, not this 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?

'Read first' gives an explicit ordering directive and the negative framing ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote') tells the agent this is a non-committal informational call. However, it never states when this tool should be skipped in favor of enquiry_fields or submit_enquiry, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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 burden, and it does disclose the exact shape of the returned payload (key, label, type, required, help text, options) — valuable given there is no output schema. It does not cover auth requirements, caching, or error behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 with no filler: the first enumerates the return contents, the second gives the downstream action. The most decision-relevant information (what fields come back) 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned field attributes, which is what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the absence of any disambiguation from the sibling enquiry_describe.

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. The description adds no parameter meaning to add, though the 'keyed by field key' clause usefully explains how the returned keys are consumed by submit_enquiry.

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 specific resource it returns — every field of the dealership SEO enquiry (key, label, type, required flag, help text, options). That is a concrete verb-less but resource-specific statement an agent can act on. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by naming it, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' tells the agent what to do downstream with the keys, which is a genuine workflow hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus enquiry_describe, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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: it discloses validation-and-summary behavior on step 1, the returned confirmation token, that re-invocation with the token actually submits, that a provider-side email click is required before anyone sees the enquiry, and the literal consent text. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from name or schema.

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-loads the critical framing ("NOT a purchase") and then walks the steps in order with no filler. It is dense and the final sentence quoting the consent text is long, but that text is functionally required for the step to be correct.

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 returns — and it does, describing the summary, consent line, and confirmation token from step 1 and the email verification consequence of step 2. Nothing an agent needs to complete this nested-object, two-call workflow 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 the baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining parameter interaction across calls: the same answers object must be resent on step 2 alongside the confirmation token obtained from step 1, and consent=true is required on both calls.

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 for dealerships") and immediately disambiguates with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote", which is the exact confusion an agent would have with a lead-submission tool. It also names the sibling dependency (field keys from 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the condition that gates step 2 ("only if the person agrees") and the exact intermediate artifact to present (summary and consent line). The agent knows when to call, what to do between calls, and when not to proceed.

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