site

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral context: nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the operation is free. It also enumerates what is returned (recipients, consent wording, confirmation mechanism), though it does not state that this describe call itself has no side effects.

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?

It is short and front-loads the sequencing cue, but the capitalized emphasis ('ENQUIRY', 'Read first.') and the trailing 'Also returns...' clause make it read more like marketing copy than a crisp definition. Every sentence roughly earns its place, yet the phrasing is 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return content, and it does list the three things returned. An agent has enough to decide whether to call it before submit_enquiry, though it does not say how those returns are structured or whether this tool is idempotent.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The empty schema leaves nothing to clarify, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter semantics.

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 uses a clear verb+resource framing ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and identifies itself as a read-first documentation tool, which separates it from submit_enquiry and enquiry_fields. It is slightly muddled because the subject of most sentences is the sibling tool rather than this tool, but an agent can still tell what it gets back.

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 cue relative to submit_enquiry, and the framing implies this is a pre-submission orientation step. It stops short of stating when-not to use it or naming enquiry_fields as an alternative for field-level questions.

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 entire disclosure burden, and it does name the return payload fields (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), which is the main behavioral question for a zero-param lookup. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, side-effect free, or what happens on unknown/missing enquiry types.

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 front-loaded with the substantive content: what is returned first, then how to use it. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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 parameterless, output-schema-less lookup tool, the description supplies the return field list and the handoff to submit_enquiry, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the relationship to the sibling enquiry_describe, which an agent must guess at.

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 document; baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'field key' refers to the return value and the keying convention for submit_enquiry, not an input, which is correctly framed.

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 resource — every field of the SEO Devon enquiry — and enumerates exactly what each field record contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). An agent knows this returns the enquiry's field definitions rather than answers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which likely 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?

It gives an explicit downstream instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent this is a discovery step preceding submit_enquiry. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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 thoroughly: validation behavior, returned summary/consent line/token, the mandatory second call, the recipient email with a click-through link, and the exact consent wording. This is the kind of multi-step, side-effecting behavior an agent cannot 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 distinction (not a purchase) and cleanly ordered as Step 1 / Step 2. The embedded verbatim consent sentence is necessary for the agent to reproduce, though the passage is dense for a single 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what step 1 returns and what step 2 triggers, and covers the consent constraint and email verification gate. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke both calls 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: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after agreement, and confirmation is the token carried forward from step 1. It adds the inter-call data flow the schema alone does not express.

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 precise verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to SEO Devon') and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also references the sibling tool by name ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so an agent can distinguish it from enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-call guidance for both passes: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also states the gating condition (the person must click the emailed link before any provider sees it), leaving nothing to inference.

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