site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral facts: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free. It also says what it returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not mention auth needs or rate limits, but for a no-param read-oriented tool the transparency is good.

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 rest is compact. The phrase "on SEO for dentists" is a somewhat narrow domain qualifier, and the sentence structure is slightly awkward, but there is little wasted text.

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?

Given the zero-parameter schema, no output schema, and no annotations, the description appropriately covers what the tool returns and the key constraints of the enquiry flow. It could be slightly more explicit about its own read-only nature, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric this is the baseline score. The description correctly adds no unnecessary parameter discussion.

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 the tool returns consent wording, recipient details, and confirmation steps, and frames itself as the read-first explanation of the enquiry process. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by positioning as descriptive rather than transacting, though it does not explicitly distinguish from 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?

"Read first" gives a clear directive on when to use this tool relative to the submission flow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name enquiry_fields as an alternative, but the sequencing guidance is strong.

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 exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the returned data (field attributes and their allowed options). It never states that the call is read-only with no side effects, nor any auth or rate-limit behavior, which are the remaining gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, and the content of the response is front-loaded ahead of the downstream 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 by enumerating the returned attributes and the key-based handoff to submit_enquiry. What is missing is a statement of read-only/side-effect behavior and any distinction from enquiry_describe, but for a zero-parameter lookup it is nearly sufficient.

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 per the baseline this scores 4. The description additionally documents the keying convention ('keyed by field key') that links the returned keys to submit_enquiry's input, which is meaningful beyond 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 names a specific resource (the SEO for dentists enquiry fields) and enumerates exactly what each field carries (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options), so the agent knows precisely what comes back. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which plausibly overlaps.

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 implies the workflow — call this to learn the field keys, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key — which is genuine downstream context. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no contrast with enquiry_describe, so the routing is left to inference.

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 that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, that the person receives a double opt-in email and must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and what 'consent' legally means. These are non-obvious side effects and privacy-relevant gates 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 key disambiguation, then ordered by step, so the sequence is easy to follow. It is dense and slightly long, and the consent sentence is quoted verbatim a second time (it also appears in the schema), which is mild redundancy, but the content is otherwise load-bearing.

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, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (confirmation email with a required click). For a nested-object, two-phase submission 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description exceeds it by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and by giving the confirmation token a workflow role (obtained from step 1, used only after the person approves the summary). It does not add type or format detail beyond that, so it is not a full 5.

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'), names the target domain, and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also reveals the two-step nature, which no sibling name conveys, so an agent can distinguish it from 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?

Explicitly prescribes Step 1 (call with answers + consent=true) and Step 2 (call again with answers, consent=true and the confirmation token) and gates Step 2 on 'only if the person agrees.' It also states what must be shown to the user (summary and consent line) before proceeding, leaving little to inference.

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