site

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It says the tool 'States plainly' what another tool does and 'Also returns' the recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method, making clear it is an informational/return-value-producing tool. It stops short of explicitly stating 'this tool has no side effects,' but for a description-oriented zero-parameter tool the transparency is adequate.

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 short, front-loaded with 'Read first', and covers purpose, key content, and return information in three sentences. It is slightly repetitive with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), but it remains efficient and well structured.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives enough context to understand what the tool returns and why it should be called first. It names the related submit_enquiry process and key output aspects, though it does not navigate the sibling tool relationship with enquiry_fields.

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 properties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are no parameters to document. This is appropriate and needs no further compensation.

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 that the tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and describes the result as an explanation rather than an action. It names the relevant resource and context (TM44 Quote) and the title reinforces that this is informational, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from enquiry_fields, so it is not quite a 5.

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' is an explicit usage cue that positions this tool as the prerequisite before using submit_enquiry. It makes the context clear: use this to understand what happens when an enquiry is submitted. It does not mention alternatives such as enquiry_fields or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full guidance.

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 disclosure burden. It states exactly what information the tool exposes and that it covers every field. It does not describe the return format or explicitly state that it is read-only, but for a simple metadata-fetching tool the core behavior is clear enough.

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: one sentence enumerates the returned field attributes, and a second sentence connects the result to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a zero-parameter metadata tool, the description covers the output contents and the expected downstream usage well. The main gaps are the lack of explicit contrast with enquiry_describe and no mention of the exact output shape, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds useful context by explaining how the returned field keys connect to submit_enquiry.

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 tool as returning every field of the TM44 Quote enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by stating that answers should be keyed by field key, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return' and does not differentiate 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 gives a concrete usage direction: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent how the output should be used with the submission sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over enquiry_describe or provide exclusion criteria.

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: it discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers a real submission, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three assessors with an opt-out.

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 the identity and the crucial non-purchase caveat, then walks the two steps in order; every sentence is load-bearing except the verbatim consent string, which is already repeated in the schema's consent description and is therefore partly redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus a verification email). Combined with the nested answers object and 100% schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to drive the two-call flow 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine sequencing semantics beyond the schema — answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true at both steps, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 after approval. It does not, however, add format constraints for arbitrary answer values.

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?

States a specific verb (submits) and resource (an enquiry to TM44 Quote), and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' so it cannot be confused with a transactional tool. Siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are clearly different in kind.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 only after the person approves the returned summary, using the confirmation token. It also states the gating condition (consent means the person has read and agreed) and names the exact alternative path for looking up fields (enquiry_fields).

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