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, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that an email link must be clicked before providers see anything, and that details go to up to three named consultants. It stops short of covering failure/validation-error behavior or any rate/volume constraints, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 purpose and the two-step structure, and every sentence carries operational weight (validation, display instruction, consent gate, email confirmation). It is somewhat long and the verbatim consent text is duplicated between description and schema, which is the only real 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 complex, human-gated, multi-call mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains what each call returns (summary, consent line, token) and the downstream consequences. Missing only edge-case behavior such as validation failure handling, which an agent would have to infer.

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 real semantics: `answers` must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, `consent` is a factual attestation with quoted legal wording, and `confirmation` is explicitly the token carried forward from step 1. That last point clarifies the required ordering of calls in a way the schema does not.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Submits an enquiry to Tacho Calibration") and immediately delimits scope with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling helpers enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe, which it references for field keys.

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 lays out an explicit two-step protocol with the exact trigger for step 2 ("only if the person agrees") and the precondition behind step 1 (answers keyed by field key, consent=true). No alternative routing is left to inference, and the blocking human-action requirement is stated.

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