site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the tool returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. The read-only nature is implied by 'Read first' and 'States plainly'.

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 and front-loaded with 'Read first.' It conveys the purpose, key behavioral caveats, and return content in three sentences without significant waste, though the title is somewhat wordy.

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 sufficiently complete: it tells the agent what the tool explains, what is not involved, and what will be returned. No critical invocation details are 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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter usage, since no parameters exist to document.

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 this tool is a read-first explanation of what submit_enquiry does: it starts an enquiry with human providers, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This distinguishes it from the sibling submit_enquiry action and gives the agent a clear reason to call it.

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 tells the agent to use this before acting on submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the context that this explains submit_enquiry's behavior is clear enough for 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, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses exactly what the tool returns: the fields' keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and allowed options. The wording suggests a read-only metadata lookup, and directing answers to submit_enquiry reinforces that this tool itself does not submit. It does not mention side effects, but none are implied.

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 front-loads what the tool provides, and the second gives a concise, actionable usage note. Every word 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, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the fields returned, and how to use the results. The only missing piece is a direct comparison with enquiry_describe to fully disambiguate from a sibling tool, but overall it gives an agent enough 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description adds useful context about the returned values' structure and how they map to submit_enquiry, which helps the agent use the output correctly. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 exposes the field definitions of the Subsidence Survey Cost enquiry, listing key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This is a specific resource with a clear purpose. It implicitly differentiates from submit_enquiry by directing answers to that tool, but does not explicitly distinguish 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 a useful downstream instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This implies the tool is used to discover the fields needed for submission, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or when not to use it. The usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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 behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the consent requirement with exact wording, the email notification, and the condition that a provider only sees the enquiry after the person clicks the email link.

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 longer than usual but every sentence earns its place given the two-step protocol. It front-loads the essential purpose and exclusions, then structures the workflow clearly into step 1 and step 2 without 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 tool with no output schema and a non-obvious two-step flow, the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what step 1 returns, what step 2 does, what consent means, and what the human will experience, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly without needing additional context.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful operational semantics beyond the schema by explaining that answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, that consent must reflect the exact quoted agreement, and that confirmation is the token returned from step 1.

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 verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Subsidence Survey Cost') and adds clear delimitation by saying it is 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also explains the two-step nature up front, making the tool's purpose distinct from its siblings.

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 usage conditions: call once with answers and consent, then call again only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It references enquiry_fields for keying answers and explicitly excludes purchase/quote use cases, though it does not name sibling tools as alternatives for those cases.

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