site

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the process is free. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is strong transparency for a read-only informational 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 three sentences and front-loads the key message with 'Read first.' It is concise, though slightly repetitive with phrases like 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'it is free' reinforcing the same point. Overall structure is effective for an informational tool.

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 does a good job explaining what it returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. It lacks exact formatting or response structure, but for an informational pre-read tool this is a solid and fairly complete description.

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 schema-level documentation is vacuous. The description appropriately adds context about what the tool does and its output rather than parameter details. With no parameters to document, this is a reasonable baseline score.

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 this tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and explains the outcome: starting an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being a descriptive/read-first tool rather than the action tool itself, though it does not explicitly contrast itself 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 opening 'Read first' gives clear timing guidance: use this tool before interacting with submit_enquiry. It also explains that this tool is informational and not the submission tool itself. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to use enquiry_fields versus this tool, leaving some ambiguity about sibling selection.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does so by enumerating the field attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It also indicates the relationship to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only or describe formatting, but the metadata nature is clear.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool returns, and the second sentence provides the essential integration detail. Every word 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 no-parameter metadata tool, the description is quite complete: it names the domain, lists the returned attributes, and connects to the sibling submit_enquiry tool. It could be slightly stronger by contrasting with enquiry_describe or stating the response format, but nothing critical is missing for an 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, so the schema provides full coverage and the baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining that field keys are the link to submit_enquiry answers, which helps the agent understand how the output should be used.

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 what the tool provides: every field of the Tree Survey Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return,' and it does not distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, but the overall purpose is clear and specific.

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 actionable guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent why it would call this tool first and how to use the returned data. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a full 5.

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 behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation behavior, the step-1 return payload (summary, consent line, token), the email-link confirmation gate before any provider sees the data, fan-out to up to three providers, and the person's ability to stop further disclosures. Nothing about side effects or consent semantics is left implicit.

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 disambiguation before the mechanics, and the two-step structure is easy to follow. It is on the long side and reproduces the full consent sentence a second time, which the schema already carries, but every other clause 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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool with a stateful two-call flow, the description supplies the missing pieces: what step 1 returns, what the token is for, and the downstream email-confirmation gate. An agent has everything needed to drive the flow without guessing.

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, but the description adds sequencing meaning the schema cannot express — that consent=true is a per-step gate and that confirmation is the token produced by step 1 and only passed on the second call. The consent wording it repeats is already in the schema, so it slightly overshoots redundancy rather than fully earning a 5.

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 states a specific verb and resource (submits an enquiry) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which is critical for an agent that might otherwise treat it as a transaction. It also names the source of the answers (field key from enquiry_fields), tying it to a sibling tool.

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?

It spells out an explicit two-call protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The conditional gate ('only if the person agrees') and the requirement to show the summary and consent line are precisely the when-to-call guidance an agent needs.

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