site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it is explicit: no purchase, order, or payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it discloses what the returned message contains. This gives the agent accurate expectations of side effects and output.

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 compact sentences front-load the essential caveats and then state the return contents. Every clause adds information and nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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-input, no-side-effect describe tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what the user gets, and what information the response includes. There are no missing fields or prerequisites an agent would need.

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 and the schema already covers them completely with an empty object, so the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter explanation is needed in the description.

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 has a specific verb (states) and resource (what submit_enquiry does on Structural Report Cost), and it positions itself as the read-first explainer rather than the actual submission tool. This clearly separates it from sibling 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?

The opening instruction 'Read first' tells the agent to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry, giving a clear use context. It does not discuss enquiry_fields or state explicit exclusions, so it misses the top score.

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 burden of disclosing behavior. It adequately communicates that the tool is an informational/read-only lookup by listing returned fields and implicitly contrasting with submission. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no parameters, or describe any limits, errors, or data-source behavior.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core content—what fields are returned—and then adds a valuable usage pointer to submit_enquiry. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or 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 metadata tool without an output schema, the description covers the return content comprehensively: keys, labels, types, requiredness, help text, and allowed options. It also connects the tool to the submission workflow, but it leaves unstated how the fields are packaged in the response and any prerequisites or failure behavior.

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, and the rubric baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no param-related burden because there are none; instead, it explains what the returned fields represent, which is appropriate for this tool.

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 states that the tool returns every field of the Structural Report Cost enquiry, enumerating the attributes included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is distinct from submit_enquiry by describing field metadata rather than submission, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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 contextual guidance: it tells the agent that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool should be used to discover valid keys and options before submitting. It does not explicitly state alternative conditions or exclusion rules for enquiry_describe, so it falls short of a 5.

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 transparency. It discloses the two-step nature, validation, consent requirements, confirmation token flow, email delivery, and the click-before-provider-sees-it condition. This is exceptionally transparent for an agent.

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: setting expectations, explaining the two steps, defining the consent wording, and noting the email requirement. The structure front-loads the critical 'not a purchase' clarification and follows with a logical step-by-step 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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what the agent receives from Step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what to show the person, and the exact condition for Step 2. It is complete enough for correct invocation of a consent-gated, multi-step tool.

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 operational meaning by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, linking the confirmation token to Step 1, and emphasizing that consent must be true in both calls. This goes beyond the schema's standalone field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Submits an enquiry to Structural Report Cost' and immediately distinguishes itself with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This clearly identifies the specific action and resource, and the two-step submission behavior separates it from sibling 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?

The description gives explicit procedural guidance: Step 1 validates and returns a summary/token, Step 2 submits only after the person agrees. It also implies dependency on enquiry_fields for answer keys. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to follow correctly.

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