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 traits: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also enumerates what is returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), giving strong non-transactional context, though it does not explicitly state the call is side-effect free.

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 lead directive 'Read first.' is well front-loaded and the passage is short, but the disclaimers ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' vs 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed') largely repeat the title, adding length without new information.

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 must explain what the tool returns, and it does: recipients of the details, the consent wording, and the confirmation step. Combined with the non-transactional framing, this is nearly complete for a zero-parameter describe 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 nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The empty schema means no parameter semantics are needed.

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 what the tool returns (a plain explanation of what an enquiry is, plus who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation) and distinguishes it from the write-oriented submit_enquiry. It is clear but the framing ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') describes the content indirectly rather than naming its own action upfront.

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' is an explicit directive that positions this tool ahead of submit_enquiry in the workflow. It conveys the ordering clearly, though it does not name the sibling alternative or state an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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 burden, but it does disclose the shape of the returned data (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options) in the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about auth needs, caching, or whether the field set is static, which keeps it out of the top band.

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, zero filler, and the core payload (what is returned) is front-loaded before the usage hint. 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the returned attributes and tying them to submit_enquiry. It is slightly incomplete on ordering/optionality of the field list itself, but nothing critical for calling the tool 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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify. The description instead redirects attention to the field keys used as answer keys in submit_enquiry, which is the relevant semantic detail for a no-input tool.

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: it returns every field of the SEO Cornwall enquiry, enumerating exactly what each field entry contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). An agent can tell this is the form-schema fetch tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling enquiry_describe.

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?

"Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key" gives a clear workflow context and names the downstream tool, implying this is the prerequisite lookup step. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it is clear context without 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 burden and does: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the enquiry, and defines exactly what consent means. Side effects, sequencing, and the consent semantics are all surfaced.

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-loads the identity and the 'not a purchase' caveat, then lays out Step 1 and Step 2 in order. It is dense but every clause is functional — the workflow, the consent text, and the token handoff each earn their 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email-verification step. For a two-phase, consent-gated, nested-object tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key drawn from enquiry_fields, and confirmation is the token from step 1 used only after the person approves the summary. It clarifies the two-call contract between consent and confirmation.

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 SEO Cornwall') and immediately disambiguates intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This lets an agent distinguish it from the read-oriented siblings (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 explicit sequencing: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token; Step 2 only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers plus the token. The when-to-call conditions and the gating human-consent requirement are stated, not inferred.

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