site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it explicitly states that no purchase/order/payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, and the service is free. It also discloses exactly what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation process), so the agent knows the informational scope and side-effect profile.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: instruction to read, core purpose, non-sales caveats, and return contents. The description front-loads 'Read first' and avoids 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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool communicates, what caveats apply, and what content is returned. The only minor omission is not mentioning enquiry_fields, but the tool itself is self-contained and low-complexity.

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 schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage by default, so there is nothing for the description to add about argument semantics. The baseline 4 applies because no parameter explanation is needed.

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 uses an explicit descriptive verb ('States plainly') and names the exact resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Site Investigation Cost'), so the agent understands this is an informational/explainer tool rather than the action itself. The title and the closing sentence about returned details also distinguish it from submit_enquiry 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' tells the agent to consult this tool before acting on submit_enquiry, and it names submit_enquiry as the operation being explained. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields or specify when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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 behavioral disclosure. It transparently enumerates the returned field metadata and notes that options are included only when they exist. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the nature of the tool as a field metadata lookup makes that omission minor.

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 two sentences with no filler: the first sentence lists exactly what the tool exposes, and the second gives a concise usage pointer. It is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

For a zero-parameter introspection tool, the description covers the full expected output structure and the intended downstream use with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about being the prerequisite lookup step before submission, but nothing critical 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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds useful context by relating the returned field keys to how they should be used when calling 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 clearly identifies the tool as exposing every field of the Site Investigation Cost enquiry, with the specific attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not directly distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, though the reference to submit_enquiry helps separate it from the submission 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?

The instruction to 'pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' provides useful workflow context for how the output should be consumed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or when not to use it, so the selection guidance is mostly implicit.

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: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers submission, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data. It also enumerates the exact consent scope (up to three firms, direct contact, opt-out). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure 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 purpose and the two steps in order, and nearly every sentence carries operational information. It runs long and repeats the consent wording already present in the schema's consent description, which is the only real 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, and the description compensates by naming what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a click-through link). For a nested-object, multi-step tool, an agent has everything needed to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot: it explains that 'confirmation' is only populated in step 2 with the token from step 1, and clarifies that answers are keyed by field key drawn from the sibling enquiry_fields tool. That temporal/conditional semantics genuinely exceeds the schema text.

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 ('Submits an enquiry to Site Investigation Cost') and immediately fences it off from adjacent concepts ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). An agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields without opening any 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?

Explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to obtain a token, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token to actually submit. The conditional gating and the required human-in-the-loop are stated outright rather than left to inference.

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