site

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 does convey that the tool is informational ("States plainly", "returns") and clarifies that no purchase or payment occurs. However, it is somewhat ambiguous whether those guarantees describe this tool or submit_enquiry, and it does not explicitly state that this tool itself has no side effects.

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 and front-loaded with the important reading instruction. The content is not padded, though the phrasing is slightly indirect and could more simply say what the tool does rather than describing submit_enquiry's behavior.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the essential return contents: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation mechanism. It is complete enough for an agent to know what to expect, though exact output formatting is not specified.

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, so parameter documentation is not needed. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns and what it clarifies, which is sufficient given the empty schema.

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 the tool's function: it explains what submit_enquiry does, starting an enquiry with human providers, and returns the recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation process. This distinguishes it from actually performing the enquiry, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 phrase "Read first" gives a clear implied usage cue: consult this before using submit_enquiry. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison with the sibling tools, so the guidance is contextually implied rather than fully specified.

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 transparency burden. It usefully discloses the content of the response, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the overall return shape looks like. For a simple field-listing tool this is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 lists exactly what the tool returns, and the second points to the downstream submission workflow. No filler or repetition of the tool name or title.

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 no-parameter metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the field attributes and connects the output to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly describe the result as a list or collection, but 'Every field' sufficiently implies the response shape.

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, so there is no parameter gap for the description to fill. The description adds relevant adjacent context by explaining that returned field keys are used for submit_enquiry, which is helpful even though it is not about parameter semantics for this tool.

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 (every field of the Transport Statement Cost enquiry) and the attributes returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is specific and distinct from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly differentiate 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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies a concrete workflow: retrieve field keys here, then use them when submitting. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe or mention any exclusions.

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 full burden. It discloses the two-step statefulness, validation, confirmation token, email with click link, provider visibility delay, and the exact consent line. This is maximal transparency for a submission 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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place; the critical 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' is front-loaded, followed by numbered steps. Length is justified by the inherently complex two-step flow and exact consent text.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full interaction contract: step-1 return values (summary, consent line, token), step-2 requirement, email workflow, and consent meaning. Nothing essential for calling this tool correctly 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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential meaning: answers must be keyed by enquiry_fields, consent must be true and paired with exact consent text, and confirmation is the step-1 token used only after approval. This goes well beyond the schema definitions.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry') and explicitly disambiguates from purchase/quote, and the two-step flow distinguishes it from the sibling enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields tools. The title reinforces the resource and steps.

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?

Provides explicit when and how: step 1 call with answers and consent=true to validate and get a token, then step 2 only after the person agrees. States it is NOT a purchase or guaranteed quote, and references enquiry_fields for answer keys, giving clear context.

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