site

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does by disclosing what the tool returns: who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It also clarifies that the subject matter is free and not a guaranteed quote. It does not explicitly state whether enquiry_describe itself triggers any side effect, but as a describe-style tool, the implied behavior is non-mutating and the return content is well specified.

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 most important instruction ('Read first'). It packs the key facts into three sentences without padding, and the title adds a useful high-level framing. Slightly redundant phrasing exists between the title and description, but the structure is effective.

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 gives enough contextual detail: what it describes, what subject it covers, and what information it returns. It could have included an explicit note that this tool does not itself submit an enquiry, but that is reasonably inferred from the wording and the sibling relationship to submit_enquiry.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. This matches the baseline expectation that a zero-parameter tool needs no parameter documentation.

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 explains what submit_enquiry does on Varicose Vein Treatment Cost, and the title reinforces that the enquiry is with a human, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It lacks an explicit comparison to sibling tools, but the verb 'States plainly' and the reference to submit_enquiry are enough to identify its role as a descriptive helper.

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' gives an immediate usage cue: consult this tool before acting on submit_enquiry. The description also frames expectations by clarifying that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid. It does not explicitly say when to choose enquiry_fields over enquiry_describe, but the usage context is otherwise clear.

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 burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses what the tool returns: the complete field structure of the enquiry, including types, required status, help text, and options. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the content strongly implies it.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core output content and then adds a practical integration instruction, making it both efficient and easy to parse.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating exactly what fields the agent will receive and how to use them downstream. Nothing essential is missing for selecting or invoking this tool.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds useful context by explaining that field keys are the linkage to submit_enquiry, but there are no parameter semantics to elaborate on.

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 purpose: it returns every field of a specific enquiry with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This is specific and actionable, and it implicitly distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by positioning itself as the source of field keys.

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 provides clear usage context: the returned field keys should be used to pass answers to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly compare against enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool, 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 at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it thoroughly: two-step statefulness, the confirmation token requirement, the exact consent-line text that must be read, the email link the person must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the distinction from a purchase or guaranteed quote. This goes well beyond what the schema expresses.

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 two-step flow, consent line, and email-click caveat are high-stakes and cannot be omitted. It front-loads the critical 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' warning and then follows the natural call order with step markers.

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?

The flow is complex — stateful token, consent gating, email verification — and there is no output schema, yet the description explains the return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the post-submit behavior (email with a click-before-visible link). Nothing an agent needs to execute both steps 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value on top: it ties answers to 'field key from enquiry_fields', restates the exact consent wording the boolean must represent, and clarifies that confirmation is the step-1 token only needed in step 2, giving the parameter a role in the sequence the schema alone doesn't 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?

Names a specific operation — 'Submits an enquiry to Varicose Vein Treatment Cost' — with a clear verb and resource, and draws an explicit line against purchase/quote confusion. The title's 'two steps; not a purchase' plus the step structure make it impossible to confuse with the read-only siblings enquiry_describe and 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?

Spells out the full call sequence: step 1 for validation (answers + consent=true, returning a summary, consent line, and token), then step 2 only 'if the person agrees', reusing the same answers with the confirmation token. It gives hard when-not guidance ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and a required precondition for step 2. It doesn't explicitly compare against the sibling tools, which keeps this just short of 5.

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