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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two-step validation flow, the email notification with a clickable link, the consent requirement, and that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also reproduces the exact consent statement so the agent knows what 'consent' means in practice.

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?

Although the description is longer than average, every sentence earns its place by explaining a required step, a constraint, or an exclusion. The key warnings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') are front-loaded, and the step-by-step structure makes the flow easy to follow.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the absence of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains both call phases, the expected outputs of each phase, the consent text, and the post-submission email-link behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying that answers come from enquiry_fields keys, that confirmation is the step-1 token, and that consent must match the exact stated agreement. This enriches the schema without repeating it verbatim.

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 Three Phase Cost'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a purchase and a guaranteed quote, and the title highlights the two-step nature. This clearly separates it from the sibling read-only tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call first with answers and consent=true to validate and receive a confirmation token, then call again only if the person agrees. It names the required precondition for the second call and warns that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks the emailed link. This leaves no ambiguity about sequencing.

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