site

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 that no purchase, order, or payment occurs, that quotes are not guaranteed, that the service is free, and that it returns recipient, consent, and confirmation details. It does not explicitly state that the describe call itself has no side effects, but that is strongly implied by '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?

Three short sentences front-load the key instruction ('Read first'), state the core behavior, list exclusions, and summarize the returned information. 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 informational tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral constraints, and returned content. It explicitly names what is returned, so nothing essential is missing for tool selection or invocation.

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 is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to explain. The description correctly focuses on behavior and output rather than 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 names a specific resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Three Phase Cost') and a specific verb ('States plainly'), and details the content returned. It also differentiates the tool from its siblings: it describes the enquiry flow rather than submitting it or listing fields.

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 positions this as the tool to consult before acting, and the description names submit_enquiry as the subject. It gives clear context but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or compare with enquiry_fields.

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 discloses the full shape of the response and implies a read-only metadata operation by instructing the agent to pass answers elsewhere for submission. It does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or the exact response format, but for a 0-parameter metadata tool this is sufficient.

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 tight sentences: the first enumerates the response contents, the second tells the agent how to chain the output into submit_enquiry. There is no redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the response contents, which is essential because there is no output schema, and provides the downstream action. It does not explicitly mention enquiry_describe or define the exact container format, but the tool is simple enough that the main usage context is captured.

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 input schema is empty, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the returned fields are rather than parameter usage, since no parameters need explanation.

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 ('Three Phase Cost enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is included for every field: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the title and content make the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from submit_enquiry.

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 tells the agent how to use the result, directing answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which also signals that this tool is the look-up step before submission. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, so some ambiguity remains between the two enquiry-introspection siblings.

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 mostly meets it: it discloses validation on the first call, the returned summary/consent line/token, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three named contractors with per-firm notification and opt-out. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. what happens if validation fails or the token expires), which is the remaining gap.

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 and dense with necessary workflow detail, with the two steps clearly sequenced. The only waste is the consent wording, which is quoted verbatim in the description and repeated near-identically in the schema's consent property.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by describing what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what the person receives (an email confirmation link). It is complete enough to drive both calls, with only error/edge-case handling left unaddressed.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by tying each parameter to a specific call: answers+consent on Step 1, and confirmation token reserved for Step 2. It also spells out the meaning of consent rather than just its type.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Three Phase Cost') and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also points at the sibling that supplies the field keys ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another 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?

States the exact two-step protocol: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true to validate, and Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The conditional that gates Step 2 is explicit, so there is no inference required about when to call.

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