site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool describes an enquiry flow, clarifies that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, and states what information is returned: recipient of details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives a solid behavioral picture for a read-only informational tool, though it never explicitly says 'this tool itself makes no changes.'

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 sentences, each earning its place. The 'Read first' directive is front-loaded, the main purpose is stated plainly, and the boundary conditions (no purchase, no guarantee, free) plus return-content summary are packed into a compact description with no redundancy.

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 without an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to approach it. It also references the related submit_enquiry tool to orient the agent. Nothing essential 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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.

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: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on Void Clearance Quotes.' It clearly distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the explanatory/pre-flight tool rather than the action tool, and the title reinforces that it describes an enquiry experience, not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 an explicit placement in the workflow, indicating this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the user will not get (no purchase, no paid order, no guaranteed quote, free), which sets expectations. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the 'Read first' instruction and naming of submit_enquiry provide adequate 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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states what information is returned, but does not explicitly say this is a read-only retrieval operation, nor does it discuss error conditions or authentication. For a metadata lookup tool, the stated content is reasonably 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 compact and information-dense. The first sentence enumerates exactly what fields are returned, and the second sentence gives the actionable relationship to submit_enquiry. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 with no output schema, the description fully specifies the output contents and connects them to the downstream tool. There are no significant gaps: the agent knows what data will come back, how it is structured conceptually, and how to use 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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is already fully covered. The description adds useful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that the returned field keys should be used as keys when calling submit_enquiry, which helps an agent connect the output to a subsequent invocation.

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 what the tool provides: every field of the Void Clearance Quotes enquiry with its key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It identifies the exact resource and content scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 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 practical usage guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, showing how this tool feeds into submission. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against enquiry_describe, but the intended workflow is 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, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses that this is not a purchase, requires explicit consent with quoted wording, sends an email, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the emailed link. It also reveals the two-step confirmation behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core action and key exclusions, then organized into clear step 1 and step 2 flow. The quoted consent line is necessary context, and every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to handle the two-step flow: what to send, what to show the person, when to call again, and what happens after submission. It also references the sibling tool for field keys, making the integration context complete.

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. The description adds meaning by specifying that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true only when the person has agreed to the exact statement, and that the confirmation token is used in step 2 with the same answers. This clarifies when the optional confirmation parameter becomes required.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry to Void Clearance Quotes') and clearly distinguishes it from a purchase and a guaranteed quote. It also separates this submission tool from the sibling informational tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) by making the action and resource explicit.

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: step 1 requires answers and consent, step 2 requires the confirmation token only after person approval. It does not explicitly compare against enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields, but the workflow guidance is clear and unambiguous.

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