site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and does well: it explicitly says nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, the enquiry is free, and it lists what is returned including recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself performs no submission, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' strongly imply a non-mutating description.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the key facts: read first, no purchase, no guarantee, free, and what is returned. The phrasing 'on Vacant Property Security Cost' is slightly awkward, but the structure is efficient and every sentence 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 tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states purpose, non-purchase nature, free status, and the returned information. It could explicitly name the enquiry_fields sibling or state that the tool itself has no side effects, but nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide to call and interpret it.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description clarifies output content and side-effect expectations instead, adding value beyond the empty input 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 defines the tool as an explanatory/meta tool that states what submit_enquiry does and returns the details of the enquiry flow. It distinguishes the enquiry from a purchase or guaranteed quote, which separates it from the action-oriented submit_enquiry sibling. It stops short of explicitly phrasing the tool's own operation as 'returns a human-readable description', but the intent is clear.

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' explicitly signals that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry, providing clear context for when to call it. It does not name the enquiry_fields sibling or state when not to use it, but the 'read first' guidance and the contrast with buying/ordering cover the primary usage scenario.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool returns field metadata and that submission is the responsibility of submit_enquiry, which implies a read-only introspection behavior. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or the exact output representation, but for a field-listing tool this is fairly 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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with the actionable next step. It packs in the resource name, the full list of returned attributes, and the submit_enquiry linkage with zero wasted words.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential content: it names the specific enquiry, lists all field metadata dimensions, and explains how to consume the result. It does not spell out the exact data structure (e.g., whether options are arrays or objects), but that is a minor omission given the exhaustive attribute list.

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 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining that the returned field keys should be used as the keys when calling submit_enquiry, which is the only meaningful semantic context for a parameterless call.

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 ('Vacant Property Security Cost enquiry') and enumerates the returned field attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'List' or 'Return', so it reads more as a definition than an action. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by directing answers there, but does not contrast with 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 clear workflow context: fetch the fields, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent how to use the result and connects it to the submission sibling. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or how it relates to enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full exclusion 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?

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token; step 2 submits and triggers a double opt-in email the person must click before any provider sees the data; up to three firms may contact the person and they can stop further disclosures. These are exactly the side effects, auth/consent requirements and reversibility facts an agent needs.

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 critical 'not a purchase' distinction and the numbered steps, so structure is strong. It runs long and repeats the consent text verbatim, though that repetition is defensible because the wording must be shown to the person.

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 having no output schema, the description tells the agent what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what step 2 causes (submission plus an email verification gate). Combined with the two-step contract, nothing needed to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds ordering semantics the schema does not: answers are keyed by field keys obtained from enquiry_fields, consent=true is the trigger, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1 only after the person approves the summary.

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 disambiguates it from what it is not: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step nature and the human-provider destination distinguish it from the read-only siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields without needing their schemas.

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 protocol: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line; Step 2 only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition for each call is stated, not implied.

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