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 meaningful work: it discloses that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly assert read-only status beyond the 'Read first' framing, so it falls just short of full behavioral disclosure.

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 imperative 'Read first' is front-loaded, followed by a compact statement of scope and returns. The clause 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free' is slightly repetitive but each element guards against a distinct misinterpretation.

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 helpfully previews what is returned (recipient of details, consent wording, confirmation method), compensating for the missing output schema. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, though the sibling relationship with enquiry_fields is left unexplained.

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 baseline is 4. There are no parameters whose semantics could be clarified or omitted, and the description correctly adds nothing extraneous about inputs.

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 a read-only informational tool that explains the enquiry flow ('Read first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does...') and names the sibling it documents. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by clarifying that nothing is purchased, but it never mentions the other sibling enquiry_fields, leaving some ambiguity about its scope among the three tools.

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 implied ordering cue that this should be consulted before submit_enquiry, which is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no routing to enquiry_fields, so the agent must infer the remaining usage boundaries.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of what is returned (including help text and allowed options), which compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about permissions, whether the field set is static or configurable, or caching/freshness 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by how to use the result. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so field by field, which is exactly what an agent needs to form a submission. It would be complete with a note on how this differs from enquiry_describe, but for a zero-parameter read tool it is sufficient.

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 baseline is 4. The description does add relevant semantics by explaining that keys returned here are the same keys used to submit answers via submit_enquiry, giving the return-value semantics a downstream purpose.

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 names the specific resource (the Web design Guildford enquiry) and enumerates exactly what it returns: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It is clearly distinguishable from submit_enquiry, though it never mentions the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving some ambiguity about which inspection tool to pick.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context by instructing that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this tool is the discovery step before submission. It does not state any exclusions or when to prefer enquiry_describe over this one, so it stops short of full when/when-not 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 at all, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double opt-in email and the required click before providers see it, and the exact consent wording. That is far more than the schema tells the agent.

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 not-a-purchase disclaimer and then ordered by step, so the agent can follow it linearly. It runs long and repeats the consent sentence verbatim from the schema, which is the only wasted space.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after submission. Nothing needed to call this correctly, including the human-confirmation requirement, 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that 'answers' is keyed by field key from the sibling tool, that 'consent' must be true, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned in step 1 and used only on the second 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?

States a specific verb and resource (submits an enquiry) and immediately qualifies scope: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling enquiry_fields tool by telling the agent answers are 'keyed by field key from 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?

Prescribes an explicit two-step protocol with the condition that gates step 2 ('only if the person agrees'), which is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs. It also names the sibling that supplies the field keys, so the agent knows the prerequisite call.

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