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 disclose meaningful traits: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns who receives the details plus the consent wording. That is solid behavioral context, though it never explicitly labels the operation read-only or describes output format.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and reasonably sized, but the middle clauses are redundant — 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' overlaps with 'it is free', and the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' is restated in the body.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what the caller gets back (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow) and the non-binding nature of the enquiry. Little an agent needs is missing, though it could be clearer that this is purely a read/describe operation.

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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it introduces no confusing parameter references.

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 a specific verb and subject — it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns the recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It references the sibling submit_enquiry, so an agent can distinguish this read-only explainer from the actual submission tool, though it does not differentiate 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?

'Read first' gives an explicit usage directive (consult this before submitting), and the content implicitly contrasts a free, non-binding enquiry against a purchase or guaranteed quote. It stops short of naming the alternatives (enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry) or stating when not to use it.

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. It discloses the read-only nature indirectly and the field attributes returned, which is useful, but it does not state any safety profile, idempotency, or how the field list might change. For a zero-parameter introspection tool the disclosure is modest but adequate.

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 waste. The first front-loads what the tool returns; the second gives the integration point with submit_enquiry.

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, so the description must describe return values; it does so by enumerating the field attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not mention pagination or whether this is stable, but for a schema-listing tool this is nearly 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 description correctly adds no parameter information because none exist, and instead explains how the returned field keys relate to submit_enquiry, which is valuable 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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns the schema of every field of the SEO for vets enquiry, enumerating exactly what each field contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry.

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 usage context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this is used before submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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-then-confirm state machine, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, and that a double opt-in email link gates provider visibility. That is far more behavioral context than typical for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and negatives, then structured as Step 1 / Step 2 — very scannable. The trailing verbatim consent quote partially duplicates the schema's consent description, which is the only mild redundancy.

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 (summary, consent line, confirmation token). The nested 'answers' object is handled via the enquiry_fields cross-reference, and the end-to-end lifecycle through email verification is described.

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 sequencing semantics the schema cannot express — that 'confirmation' is only supplied on the second call, and that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. It also spells out the exact consent wording that makes consent=true valid.

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 vets') and immediately bounds it with two explicit negatives ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs against a quote/purchase tool. It also cross-references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys.

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 selects step 2 ('only if the person agrees'), plus the intermediate UI obligation to show the summary and consent line. Nothing about when to call or when not to call is left to inference.

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