site

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 explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the action is free, and that it returns who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is strong transparency for a zero-parameter informational 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?

The description is short, front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, and every sentence serves a purpose: setting the expected use, clarifying what the action is not, and stating what the tool returns. There is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and what information it returns. An agent can correctly decide to invoke this tool before submit_enquiry and know what to expect from the response.

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 is empty and has no parameters, so there is nothing additional the description needs to explain. The baseline of 4 applies here because the description appropriately says nothing about parameters that do not exist.

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 this as an informational tool that 'States plainly' what submit_enquiry does, rather than performing the submission itself. It names the specific subject (Sponsor Licence Cost) and contrasts it with a purchase or guaranteed quote, making its purpose unmistakable.

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' explicitly positions this tool as the prerequisite before using submit_enquiry, and the context explains that it is the descriptive counterpart to the submission action. It doesn't explicitly mention enquiry_fields or give a 'when not to use' list, but the primary usage 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 behavioral burden. It discloses what the response will contain and notes that options are included only where they exist. It implies a read-only metadata operation and is transparent about output composition, though it does not discuss errors or authentication.

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 with no filler: the first front-loads what the tool returns, and the second adds the essential connection to submit_enquiry. Every part 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 metadata-listing tool, this is complete: it specifies the output fields and how to use them afterward. Since there is no output schema, enumerating the field attributes is especially valuable.

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 and schema coverage is effectively complete, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on the response structure rather than parameter details.

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 resource ('Sponsor Licence Cost enquiry') and lists the exact contents returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be keyed by field key, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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?

The description gives clear usage context: call this tool to obtain the field keys needed for submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with enquiry_describe, but the intended workflow is concrete and easy for an agent to follow.

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 excellently. It discloses the two-step flow, the validation and token-issuing behavior, the requirement for the person to click an emailed link before the provider sees anything, and the exact consent text. This goes well beyond a simple 'submits an enquiry'.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose. It front-loads the critical caution (not a purchase, not a quote), then lays out Step 1 and Step 2 clearly, and ends with the exact consent wording. The structure mirrors the tool's expected call sequence, making it easy for an agent to follow.

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 multi-step tool with no output schema, the description explains the full lifecycle: what happens in each call, what the person must see and agree to, and what must happen before the enquiry is actually received. The only slight omission is the return value of the second call, but this is minor given the clarity of the overall flow.

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?

Although the schema already covers all three parameters (100% coverage), the description adds critical meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true only with the person's explicit agreement to the quoted line, and 'confirmation' is the token from step 1. This transforms bare field names into an actionable workflow.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry') and a clear resource ('Sponsor Licence Cost'), and immediately distinguishes it from adjacent operations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The title further clarifies the two-step nature and that this is not a purchase, so an agent can confidently identify what the tool does.

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 explicit step-by-step instructions: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields), but the submission context is unambiguous and complete enough to avoid misusing the tool.

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