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 delivers: it discloses validation behavior, that the return includes a summary, consent line and confirmation token, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the data, and it defines exactly what consent means. This is unusually rich behavioral context 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 critical 'not a purchase' caveat and organized as Step 1/Step 2, so structure is excellent. It is long, and the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim in both the description and the schema, which is mild redundancy, but every part serves the workflow.

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 the returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email/click flow. For a two-step, nested-object mutation tool, nothing an agent needs 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the schema already documents all three parameters, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true, and that confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and used only in step 2. That sequencing context goes beyond the schema.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Sponsor Licence Cost), and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can route correctly without opening other schemas.

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: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token, Step 2 only if the person agrees, resubmit with the token. The gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the required user-facing actions (show summary and consent line) are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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