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 so well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and it discloses what the response contains (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation flow). This goes well beyond a bare restatement of purpose.

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 two-sentence structure is front-loaded with "Read first," then pivots to what submit_enquiry does and what is returned. It is dense but every clause earns its place; 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, no-output-schema describe tool with no annotations, the description adequately covers behavior and return content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation). It stops short of describing whether the content is static or dynamically derived, but the agent has enough to invoke it 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 subject – it explains what submit_enquiry does on SEO for personal injury lawyers – and contrasts it with the sibling submit_enquiry by framing this tool as the descriptive/read-first companion. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from enquiry_fields, but the verb-resource pairing is clear enough to select correctly.

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 clear invocation cue relative to submit_enquiry, but no alternatives are named and no when-not conditions are stated. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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 it does disclose the substantive behavior: a zero-argument lookup whose payload is the full field schema including conditional allowed options. It stops short of stating that the operation is read-only/safe or noting caching or auth characteristics, but the mutation risk profile is implicitly clear since no inputs are accepted.

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, no filler, and the payload contents are front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause earns 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape — and it does, listing every field attribute including the conditional options list. For a zero-parameter read tool with two siblings, 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description usefully explains that the returned 'key' is what answers must be keyed by in submit_enquiry, which is the only parameter-adjacent semantics worth stating.

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 exact resource (every field of the SEO for personal injury lawyers enquiry) and enumerates the attributes returned: key, label, type, required, help text and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by framing this tool as the source of the field keys that submit_enquiry consumes.

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 a clear downstream workflow cue — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which tells the agent to call this before submitting. However, it never addresses the other sibling, enquiry_describe, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone when to pick one over the other.

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 the validation pass, the token mechanism, that the enquiry is only submitted on the second call, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees it, and it spells out the consent statement verbatim. Mutation side effects and the human-verification step are both covered.

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 purpose and the negation, then the two steps in order; every sentence is load-bearing. It is long, and the inline quoted consent sentence adds bulk, but that text is a required argument value rather than filler, so it earns 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description describes both return shapes: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token; step 2 submits and triggers an email link. Combined with the nested-object answers parameter and the required/optional split, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from the sibling enquiry_fields tool, consent=true is tied to a specific quoted consent statement, and confirmation is scoped to "the confirmation token from step 1" used only on the second call rather than being an optional free-form string.

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 personal injury lawyers") and immediately bounds it with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling read-only tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which fetch field definitions rather than submitting data.

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 a conditional gate on step 2 ("only if the person agrees"), including the human-facing obligations between steps (show the summary and consent line). An agent knows exactly when to call, when not to advance, and what has to happen in between.

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