site

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. It explains what happens, what does not happen ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), that it is free, and what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and compresses the essential behavioral facts into a few sentences. It is slightly dense and the pronoun 'it' could momentarily cause ambiguity, but every sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, the underlying submit_enquiry behavior, the non-commitment nature, and the return contents. It gives an agent enough context to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 coverage is trivially complete, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline for no parameters is 4.

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 'Read first' and clearly states that the tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Tax Investigation Cost. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by positioning itself as the descriptive precursor to that action.

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' provides clear usage context: this should be used before acting on submit_enquiry. The description also clarifies what submit_enquiry does not do, which helps avoid misuse, but it does not explicitly compare against enquiry_fields or give a formal when-not-to-use rule.

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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the tool returns the enquiry's fields and their properties, and it hints at downstream behavior via submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects, but the described behavior is consistent and sufficiently clear for this simple 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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a practical usage hint. Every clause earns its place and 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the returned fields will include: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also links to submit_enquiry. It is slightly spare on when to use this versus enquiry_describe, but it is complete enough for the agent 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 fully covered by an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 ('Tax Investigation Cost enquiry') and the outcome (every field with its metadata), and it differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 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 concrete usage guidance: retrieve the fields, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by the field keys. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use wording or mention of the alternative enquiry_describe, but the workflow context is clear enough.

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 fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the two-step nature, validation behavior, return of summary/consent line/confirmation token, the email-with-link delivery, and the critical fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. It also spells out the exact consent wording and the consequence of consent.

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 earns its length: it packs the two-step protocol, consent text, token flow, email/link behavior, and exclusions into one coherent paragraph. The Step 1/Step 2 structure makes the information scannable, and no sentence is redundant with the schema's static field descriptions.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly what to do in step 1, what to show the person, what to do in step 2, and what happens after submission. The only minor omission is error-handling behavior, but that is not essential for correct invocation in the described flow.

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 schema already describes all parameters clearly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by explaining that answers must use field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true only when the person agrees to the specific consent line, and that confirmation is the token from step 1. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying the lifecycle and relationship between the parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Tax Investigation Cost' and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly distinguishes this submission action from sibling tools like enquiry_fields by framing the call as the two-step submission flow rather than field retrieval or description.

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: step 1 to validate and get a confirmation token, then step 2 only after the person agrees. It also specifies the prerequisite that answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields' and the condition for consent. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this tool beyond the 'not a purchase' framing.

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