site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it details exactly what content is returned.

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 description is four short sentences, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence adds value: purpose, no-purchase clarification, free status, and returned content. No waste or 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?

For a no-input, no-output-schema tool, the description fully covers purpose, behavior, and return content. It also ties the tool to submit_enquiry, giving an agent enough context 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Shop Sign Cost' and details what it returns. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like submit_enquiry itself and 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?

The opening 'Read first' clearly signals that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It doesn't explicitly mention enquiry_fields or when not to use it, but the intended context is clear.

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It transparently describes what information the tool exposes and how it relates to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that it is a read-only retrieval operation, but the zero-parameter signature and the descriptive content make this reasonably clear.

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 description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The first sentence enumerates the returned field metadata; the second gives actionable guidance for the related submission flow.

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 simple no-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what will be returned and how the results should be used. It does not describe the exact response JSON shape, but the field enumeration gives an agent enough structure to proceed.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter usage. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, this is fully adequate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing every field of the Shop Sign Cost enquiry, listing exactly what metadata is included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be passed to that sibling keyed by field key.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to discover the enquiry's field structure and keys before submitting via submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but the guidance about submit_enquiry makes the intended workflow clear.

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 behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses validation behavior, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), that the second call is irreversible submission, and that contact details go to up to three providers who may contact the person directly. The one gap is that it doesn't state what happens if step 2 is called without a valid token, or whether submission can be undone.

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?

Well front-loaded: the 'NOT a purchase' warning and the step split come first, so an agent gets the critical framing immediately. It is somewhat long, and the full consent sentence is duplicated verbatim from the schema's consent description, which is mild redundancy, but every other sentence carries operational information.

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, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what step 2 triggers (submission plus a verification email). Combined with a fully documented schema, an agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining that answers are keyed by the field keys returned from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true at both steps, and that confirmation is the token issued by step 1 — usage semantics the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 human providers) and immediately delimits scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step framing and the reference to enquiry_fields answers distinguishes it cleanly from the sibling read tools enquiry_describe and 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 explicit staged conditions: Step 1 calls with answers + consent=true, Step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also states prerequisites (person must have read and agreed to the consent text) and the downstream gate (recipient must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry). Nothing about when to call vs. not 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.