site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free, and it discloses what the tool returns. It could say more about side effects (e.g. whether any enquiry is created by calling it), but the non-commitment is clearly communicated.

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?

It is front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first' and packs the key guarantees into a compact space. The middle clause narrating submit_enquiry is slightly indirect but every sentence still conveys distinct information.

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-argument, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description responsibly fills the gap by describing what it returns and what calling it implies. It is nearly self-sufficient, missing only explicit relationship to its siblings.

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 takes zero parameters, so the rubric assigns a baseline of 4. There is no parameter semantics to explain and none is missing.

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 makes clear this is an informational/read tool that explains what an enquiry is and returns supporting detail (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation flow). It is somewhat roundabout, framing itself via submit_enquiry's behavior, but the 'Also returns...' clause pins down its actual output. It does not cleanly contrast with 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?

'Read first' implies the agent should consult this before submitting, which is meaningful sequencing guidance. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and the sibling enquiry_fields is never named as an alternative or complement.

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 disclose the return contents (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), which is essential since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only lookup or noting any auth/caching behavior, so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the return contents are front-loaded and the workflow note follows. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title.

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 lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the identity of the enquiry, the shape of each returned field, and how to feed the keys forward. It could be marginally more complete by stating the read-only nature or the array structure, but no critical gap remains.

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 takes zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining how the returned field keys are consumed by submit_enquiry, but no input semantics exist to clarify.

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 identifies a specific resource — every field of the 'Website designers for small business' enquiry — and enumerates exactly what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). This lets an agent distinguish it from submit_enquiry, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and relies on a noun phrase to convey the read operation.

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 second sentence gives downstream context — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which implies the intended workflow. However, it says nothing about when to call this versus the sibling enquiry_describe, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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 disclosure burden and does so: it explains validation and what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that the enquiry is only submitted on step 2, and that a click-through email must happen before any provider sees it. The exact consent wording is quoted, so the agent knows precisely what the person must agree to.

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 critical disclaimer and the two steps are front-loaded, and every sentence adds procedural or consent information rather than restating the name. It is dense as a single paragraph and repeats the consent text that also appears in the schema, which is minor redundancy but justified by emphasis.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values itself, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token; step 2 triggers submission plus a verifiable email. For a three-parameter, two-step, side-effecting flow this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 sequencing meaning the schema cannot: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true in both steps, and 'confirmation' is only supplied in step 2 after summary approval. That maps each parameter to a specific step, exceeding what the flat schema states.

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 to Website designers for small business') and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misreading. It also differentiates itself from siblings by referencing 'field key from enquiry_fields' and the two-step design that enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields do not share.

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 explicit conditional sequencing: 'Step 1: call with the answers ... and consent=true' and 'Step 2: only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token'. It names the gating condition (person agrees) and what to do with the intermediate result (show the summary and consent line), leaving nothing to inference.

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