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 disclose meaningful behavior: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns who receives details, the consent wording, and the confirmation step. The read-only nature is implied by contrast with submit_enquiry rather than stated outright.

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 'Read first' lead is well front-loaded, but the single long sentence is wordy and stacks several negations plus a return-content list. It is functional but not tight.

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 the return payload, and it does reasonably well by listing recipients, consent wording, and confirmation flow. It is complete enough for a no-param informational tool.

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 no parameter semantics to clarify; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The description appropriately spends no effort on 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/documentation tool that returns what an enquiry involves, and it names the sibling submit_enquiry, which it is distinct from. The wording ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') is slightly indirect about what the tool itself returns, keeping it short of a top score.

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 'Read first' explicitly signals when to reach for this tool relative to submit_enquiry, giving real sequencing guidance. It does not spell out when-not-to-use or name enquiry_fields as an alternative, so it stops short of 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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of what comes back (key, label, type, required, help text, options) despite there being no output schema. It does not explicitly confirm the call is a side-effect-free read or say whether the field set is static, which keeps it from a 5.

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, both load-bearing: the first enumerates the returned attributes in place of an absent output schema, and the second is an actionable handoff to a sibling tool. Nothing is redundant and the resource is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by listing the exact payload members, and with zero parameters there is no argument documentation gap. The remaining shortfall is the unexplained boundary with the sibling enquiry_describe, which an agent cannot resolve from this text alone.

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; this hits the baseline 4 for a no-parameter tool. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and instead points at the downstream key convention for 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 identifies a specific resource (every field of the PPC agency Manchester enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each field record contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. The action verb is only implied ('returns'), and there is no differentiation from the sibling enquiry_describe, which sounds like an overlapping metadata tool, so it stops short of 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 second sentence gives a concrete downstream usage instruction: answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells the agent how the output connects to a sibling tool. However there is no statement of when to call this versus enquiry_describe, nor any prerequisites or exclusions, so it remains implied usage rather than explicit routing.

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: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that step 2 actually submits, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also spells out what consent legally means.

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 constraints are front-loaded in the first clause, and the step-by-step structure is easy to follow. It is slightly long and repeats the consent sentence, which is already present in the schema's consent description.

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 two-step, side-effect-bearing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the return values of step 1, the side effect of step 2, and the double opt-in gate. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is the token returned in step 1 and used only after the person approves the summary.

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 PPC agency Manchester) and immediately delimits scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' which separates it from a booking/purchase action. The two-step framing makes its role distinct from the read-oriented siblings enquiry_describe and 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?

Gives explicit, sequenced when-to-use guidance: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also names the precondition for step 2, so an agent knows exactly when each invocation is appropriate.

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