site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly says nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also discloses the return contents: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.

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 'Read first.' Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool explains, the key caveats, and the returned content. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 descriptive tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's role, the workflow it describes, the limitations of the underlying process, and what information is returned. No critical usage detail 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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 function: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on Washroom Quotes' rather than performing the enquiry itself. The title further reinforces the distinction by framing the outcome as an enquiry with a human, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This separates it from the sibling submit_enquiry tool.

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 imperative 'Read first' is an explicit cue to consult this tool before taking action, and the description makes clear that it explains submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields or state when not to use it, 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, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the content of the response (all field attributes) and the expected downstream usage. It does not mention return format or error cases, but for a zero-parameter metadata read this is acceptable.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The resource and its detailed content are front-loaded, and the cross-reference to submit_enquiry is placed at the end without disrupting the core meaning.

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 simple zero-parameter metadata tool, the description covers the returned fields and the practical usage with submit_enquiry. It lacks an explicit statement that this is a read-only operation or a description of the response format, but neither is critical given the obvious intent and simplicity.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none; it instead explains how the output relates to submit_enquiry, which is useful context.

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 exactly what the tool does: it returns every field of the Washroom Quotes enquiry, listing key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It clearly distinguishes this from a general description by naming the specific field metadata, and it references the related submit_enquiry tool.

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 usage when you need field-level metadata and explicitly says to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it never contrasts this with the sibling enquiry_describe, so the agent does not get explicit when-to-use versus alternative 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 full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the consent requirement with the exact consent text, the email-link step, and the non-guaranteed nature of the quote. This is far more transparent than typical mutation tools.

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 most important distinction ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then organizes the process into clear Step 1 and Step 2 instructions. Every sentence carries necessary information, including the exact consent wording, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 does, the email-link requirement, and the consent prerequisite. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly across both steps.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds crucial semantic context: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent has a precise meaning tied to the quoted consent line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This materially improves an agent's ability to populate the parameters correctly.

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 Washroom Quotes' and immediately clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly differentiates the action from any purchase-oriented sibling and leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 an explicit two-step procedure with exact conditions: call first with answers and consent=true, then call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token only after the person agrees. It also specifies that the person must click an emailed link before providers see the enquiry, giving clear operational guidance.

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