site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it explicitly states nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and enumerates what the call returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). That is meaningful disclosure for a read-only informational tool, though it does not discuss rate limits or side-effect absence in annotation terms.

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, front-loaded with the imperative "Read first" and zero filler about return mechanics. The phrase "on White label SEO marketing" is slightly awkward and reads as boilerplate, costing a point.

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 convey returns, and it does: recipients of details, consent wording, and confirmation method. For a zero-parameter informational tool this is close to complete, with only minor gaps around format specifics.

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 there are no semantics to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty schema.

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 submit_enquiry does (starts an enquiry with human providers) and also returns recipient, consent wording, and confirmation details. It is distinguishable from siblings enquiry_fields and submit_enquiry, though the framing is oddly centered on the sibling tool rather than on itself, which slightly muddies the verb.

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 a clear sequencing instruction (use this before submit_enquiry), which is genuine usage guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicitly stating when-not-to-use, so it falls just below the top mark.

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 does disclose the return shape in detail (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options). It omits whether the call is safe/read-only or requires auth, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool that is a minor gap rather than a misleading one.

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 field list front-loaded and the usage instruction second. Slightly dense but 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?

Since no output schema exists, the description properly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it connects the output to the downstream submit_enquiry call. A note on read-only safety or auth would make it fully complete, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description adds relevant context by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys expected 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?

The description names a specific resource (every field of the White label SEO marketing enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows precisely what this returns. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous and it is clearly distinguishable from submit_enquiry, which it references.

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 establishes the workflow linkage: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent when to call this before submitting. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling enquiry_describe, and states no prerequisites or exclusions.

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 behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses the two-call protocol, that the first call validates without submitting, what is returned (summary, consent line, token), the double opt-in email link gate before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is unusually complete for a mutation-style tool.

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 critical non-purchase disclaimer, then structured as a numbered two-step flow, which is easy to follow. It is somewhat long and repeats the consent wording that also appears verbatim in the schema, costing a little efficiency.

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 explain results, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token, while step 2 triggers a confirmation email. Combined with the parameter and consent details, an agent has everything needed to execute both steps 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 already 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields and clarifying that the confirmation token is used only on the approved step-2 call, which connects the parameters into a workflow rather than three isolated fields.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to human providers), and immediately disambiguates from the closest misinterpretation with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent understands both the action and its non-transactional nature without opening the 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 explicit conditional routing: step 1 with answers+consent, then step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also implicitly routes the agent to enquiry_fields for the answer keys. It does not name or contrast the other siblings (enquiry_describe), so it stops short of full alternative coverage.

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