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 burden, and it does remarkably well: it discloses the two-step behavior, validation, the confirmation token flow, the consent line, the email with a required link, and that no provider sees the enquiry until the link is clicked. It also states clearly that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, giving the agent a full picture of 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 longer than average but front-loads the critical distinction ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and organizes the workflow into clear Step 1 and Step 2 sections. The consent wording is repeated from the schema, which adds a little redundancy, but overall each sentence contributes necessary operational detail.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, this description provides everything an agent needs to call the tool correctly: the required answers, consent semantics, the two-step token flow, what to show the person, and the post-submission email behavior. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it ties answers to enquiry_fields, explains that consent is only true when the person has read the exact consent text, and clarifies that confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This is useful workflow context that the schema alone would not convey.

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 and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Underpinning Costs' and clearly positions it as a two-step submission rather than a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also references field keys from enquiry_fields, which helps distinguish it from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools.

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 step-by-step usage guidance: call first with answers and consent=true, show the returned summary, then call again only if the person agrees, using the same answers and confirmation token. It clearly says when to send the second call, but it does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool versus the sibling tools beyond implying that field keys come from enquiry_fields.

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