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, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it starts an enquiry with human providers who quote directly. It also signals the return contents (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). It stops short of stating side effects or auth requirements, but for a zero-param documentation tool that is a minor gap.

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?

'Read first' is front-loaded and the three sentences each carry content: the purpose, the transactional disclaimers, and the return contents. It is a touch repetitive ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' plus 'no quote is guaranteed; it is free'), but nothing is wasted enough to harm usability.

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 cover returns, and it does: recipients, consent wording, and how the person confirms. Combined with the safety/expectation disclaimers, an agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to expect back. A short note on ordering relative to enquiry_fields would make it 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?

The tool takes no parameters (schema coverage 100% of an empty object), so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter detail and instead spends its text on behavioral and return context, which is the right allocation.

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 descriptive/introspection tool: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns recipients, consent wording, and confirmation mechanics. It distinguishes itself from siblings (enquiry_fields supplies the form fields, submit_enquiry performs the action) by framing itself as the 'read first' explainer. It is slightly indirect in that it describes a sibling's behavior rather than naming its own verb+resource up front.

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' explicitly sequences this tool ahead of submit_enquiry, which is a genuine when-to-use signal. It does not spell out a when-not case or name alternatives, but the ordering guidance is concrete and actionable.

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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does describe the shape of what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not explicitly state the operation is a safe read or note any auth/rate-limit behavior, leaving a small gap.

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 sentences, no filler, with the returned-field inventory front-loaded and the workflow instruction last. Every clause earns its place.

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-param discovery tool with no output schema, describing the return fields and the hand-off to submit_enquiry covers what an agent needs. The only shortfall is not clarifying the relationship to the sibling enquiry_describe.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead explains how the returned keys are consumed by submit_enquiry.

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 precisely what the tool returns: the field metadata (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options) for a specific enquiry. It is clearly a discovery/schema tool, distinguishable from submit_enquiry. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which keeps it from a 5.

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 final sentence routes the agent downstream: answers go to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this is the pre-submission discovery step. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison against enquiry_describe.

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 validation behavior, the exact return contents of step 1 (summary, consent line, token), the human-in-the-loop consent requirement, and the downstream email-verification gate before any provider sees the enquiry. It also states the exact consent wording.

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 purpose and disclaimers before the steps, and every sentence is functional. It is dense but somewhat long, and the consent definition is restated verbatim in the schema description, so a small amount of text is redundant.

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 compensates by spelling out what step 1 returns and what happens after step 2 (email link required before provider visibility). An agent has everything needed to drive the full flow 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. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the workflow meaning of each parameter: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person has agreed, and the confirmation token is the step-1 output that gates step 2.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Submits an enquiry to Web design Woking') with an immediate scope disclaimer ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This distinguishes it unmistakably from the sibling read-only tools (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) without opening any schema.

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 an explicit two-step invocation protocol with the precise condition for each call: step 1 validates and returns a summary/token, step 2 happens 'only if the person agrees'. It also routes the agent to enquiry_fields for the field keys used in the answers object.

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