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: the tool is informational, free, involves no purchase or order, and no quote is guaranteed. It also previews what it returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It stops short of explicitly stating read-only status or the response shape, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is solid.

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, front-loaded with the directive "Read first" and then the substantive content. Slightly dense with clauses, but no sentence is filler and the key point (it's an enquiry, not a purchase) leads.

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 and no parameters, the description must itself convey what the caller gets, and it does: the explanation of submit_enquiry, the recipients, the consent wording, and the confirmation mechanism. Complete enough for an agent to know what to expect from this 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 the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, matching 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 states a specific function: it returns a plain-language explanation of what submit_enquiry does, plus who receives details, the consent wording, and the confirmation step. It clearly distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by clarifying that nothing is bought or paid, but it never mentions the sibling enquiry_fields, so it does not fully triangulate its place among siblings.

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 explicit ordering instruction that positions this tool ahead of submit_enquiry, which is useful routing guidance. It does not, however, state when to use enquiry_fields instead or any condition under which this tool should be skipped.

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. It does disclose the return shape (the field breakdown) despite there being no output schema, and its phrasing implies a non-mutating read. It does not state explicitly that no arguments are needed or whether the field set is static, but the intent is reasonably clear.

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, front-loaded with the returned data shape and closed with the downstream action. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 enumerating the returned fields and the keying convention for submit_enquiry, which is what an agent needs to chain the calls. The remaining gap is the lack of any contrast with enquiry_describe, leaving sibling selection under-specified.

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 adds useful output semantics (the key/label/type/required/options tuple) that an agent needs in order to interpret results, even though no input semantics are required.

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 resource (the enquiry's fields) and enumerates exactly what each returned field contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. This is concrete and verb-less but the resource is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which likely also describes the enquiry.

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 routes the agent to submit_enquiry and specifies the keying convention (by field key), which implies the workflow: fetch fields, then submit keyed answers. It never states when this tool should be chosen over the sibling enquiry_describe, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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 the validation-only nature of step 1, the returned summary/consent line/token, the post-submit confirmation email and that a link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, plus what consent legally means. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from the schema.

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 constraint (not a purchase) and organized as Step 1/Step 2, which mirrors how the agent must act. It is somewhat long and restates the consent sentence twice, but every clause carries operational information rather than filler.

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, yet the description still explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email and link click before provider visibility). Combined with the required-parameter list, an agent has everything needed to execute both calls 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 lacks: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is only true with the stated agreement, and confirmation is only passed on the second call. It does not add syntax or validation rules for the free-form answers map, so it stays just above baseline.

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 (submit) and resource (enquiry) and immediately scopes it: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step framing and the 'SEO for accountants' domain make it distinct from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which supply field metadata rather than submission.

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 when-to-call instructions per step: call once with answers+consent to validate, then call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It also states the consent precondition and the human-approval gate that selects step 2, so an agent knows exactly which call to make and when not to proceed.

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