site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this tool returns an explanation, contradicts invalid assumptions (nothing is bought, ordered, or paid), and specifies the informative content: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state 'this tool has no side effects,' but the descriptive framing strongly implies it.

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, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence carries distinct value: what the tool does, key disclaimers, and return contents. The title reinforces the core meaning without bloating the description.

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 no-parameter informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough. It explains the purpose, scope, what is not done, and what information will be returned. An agent can decide whether to call this tool or proceed to submit_enquiry.

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. There is nothing for the description to add beyond what the empty schema already shows.

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 the tool's purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does rather than performing the enquiry. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by framing itself as the plain-language precursor ('Read first. States plainly...'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from enquiry_fields, so some sibling ambiguity remains.

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' signals that this tool should be consulted before acting on submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the enquiry process is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but for a zero-parameter informational tool the guidance is sufficient.

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 behavioral burden. It clearly discloses what the tool provides and how the output relates to a subsequent submission. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect free, but the described behavior of returning field metadata strongly implies a safe query.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core content and the second immediately connects the result to the sibling tool submit_enquiry. Every sentence 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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates the fields returned, explains the allowed options, and tells the agent how to use the result. Nothing else is needed to call or understand this tool 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed because the tool takes no arguments. The mention that answers should be keyed by field key indirectly explains how the output parameters of this tool feed another 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 identifies the specific resource (the Tacho Calibration enquiry) and enumerates the returned content: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', but the meaning is unambiguous and the title reinforces it. It is clearly distinct from submit_enquiry, 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 provides clear context: the fields are meant to be used as keys when passing answers to submit_enquiry. This tells an agent when to call this tool relative to a sibling. It does not state exclusions or when to prefer enquiry_describe, but the usage hint is sufficient for common cases.

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 disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly. It reveals validation behavior, return contents, the required consent text, the email link requirement, and the post-click provider visibility rule, all without contradicting any structured metadata.

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 average but every sentence earns its place: purpose clarification, step sequencing, return values, consent wording, and post-submission behavior. The critical 'NOT a purchase' boundary is front-loaded, and the quoted consent text avoids paraphrase drift.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context for correct invocation: required inputs, validation and confirmation flow, agreement condition, email side effect, and provider visibility timing. Nothing essential to calling this tool safely 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 input schema already covers all parameters at 100%, including the consent meaning and keyed answers, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow semantics by explaining that answers are keyed from enquiry_fields, that confirmation is the step-1 token, and that consent must persist across both calls.

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 Tacho Calibration' and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes the tool's core purpose from related but different actions.

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 two-step workflow is fully explicit: step 1 is validation and consent display, step 2 is submission only 'if the person agrees', using the same answers plus the confirmation token. The description also states the consequence of step 2 (email link and provider visibility), leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke the tool.

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