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 discloses the nature of the underlying enquiry process and the return contents ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms'), but it does not explicitly state that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects or requires no special permissions.

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 only three sentences, front-loads the important instruction ('Read first'), and keeps the key caveats together. It is slightly redundant with the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' theme, but there is little wasted text inside the body.

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?

In the absence of an output schema, the description names the main return categories and clarifies what the operation is not (not a purchase or guaranteed quote). It is sufficient for an informational zero-parameter tool, though it could add an explicit statement that this tool itself does not submit anything.

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 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description adds no irrelevant parameter information.

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 uses a specific verb ('States plainly') and names the target resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Underpinning Costs'), so an agent knows this is an explanatory tool rather than the submission action. It does not explicitly differentiate from enquiry_fields, though naming submit_enquiry and saying 'Read first' gives context.

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 instruction to consult this before submit_enquiry, and the caveats ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed') set expectations about when this information is relevant. It does not mention enquiry_fields or state when not to use the tool, so it is not a full routing guide.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is an informational schema lookup and enumerates exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly state that it is read-only and side-effect-free, but the no-input, descriptive nature makes that low risk.

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 a single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and enumerates the output fields efficiently. The final instruction about submit_enquiry is relevant and 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 metadata tool, the description explains both what is returned and how the output should be used, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is lack of explicit sibling differentiation, but that does not materially hurt usability here.

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 schema coverage is effectively complete, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds useful guidance on how to use the returned field keys with 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's resource: every field of the Underpinning Costs enquiry, with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it falls just short of full clarity.

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 implies when to use this tool: to get field keys for passing answers to submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or when not to use it, so the guidance is present but only implicit.

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: it discloses the validate-then-submit flow, the returned summary/consent line/token, the email verification link that gates provider visibility, and the exact scope of consent (up to three contractors, right to stop). It also warns that submission is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, which is critical downstream context.

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 long but front-loads the most important framing ('NOT a purchase') and then walks the steps in order, so every sentence earns its place. It loses a point for quoting the full consent text, which is already present verbatim in the consent parameter's schema description.

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 nested-object, two-phase mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the entry conditions, the intermediate return values, the second-call requirements, and the post-submission consequence. An agent has everything needed to drive the 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, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (naming the sibling that supplies the keys), that consent must be true and what it represents, and that confirmation is the token returned from step 1 and is only used on the second call. This clarifies the conditional, cross-call role of the confirmation parameter that the schema alone does not.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry') and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which distinguishes it from what an agent might otherwise assume. The sibling tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields are read-only helpers, and this is clearly the terminal write action, so the agent can route correctly.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true to validate, step 2 only after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It states the precondition for each call and what to show the person between steps, leaving no inference needed.

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