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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does: it discloses the validate-then-submit flow, that submission triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees the data, that details go to up to three firms chosen by the operator, and that the person can stop further distribution. The consent semantics (what the person is agreeing to) are spelled out verbatim.

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-loads the critical framing (not a purchase/quote) and orders the steps correctly. It is somewhat long and repeats the consent text that already appears in the consent parameter schema description, which is mild redundancy, though showing the consent line is arguably part of the agent's task.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token; step 2 results in an emailed verification link. Combined with the nested-object answers parameter and the 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema cannot: the confirmation token is produced by step 1 and is required only in step 2, and answers must be keyed by field keys sourced from enquiry_fields. It does not add format detail for the answers values, but the sequencing value is real.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Tax Investigation Cost') and immediately rules out two common misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The sibling tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) are for discovery of fields/description, and this is clearly the submission tool, so an agent can discriminate without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the condition that selects each step: call once with answers+consent=true to validate, then call again with the confirmation token only after the person agrees. Exclusions and prerequisites are stated, and the cross-reference to 'field key from enquiry_fields' routes the agent to the right sibling for input preparation.

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