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 well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the call is free, plus what the response contains (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It implies read-only via 'Read first' but never states side-effect freedom explicitly.

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 as the operative instruction, followed by a compact summary of purpose and return contents. Slightly list-like phrasing in the final clause but no filler sentences.

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 zero-param, no-output-schema informational tool, the description explains what the caller gets and what the enquiry is not, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify its relationship to the enquiry_fields sibling.

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 of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning the description could add or omit. The description correctly describes the returned content rather than any input, which is the right focus for a zero-param 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: it explains what submit_enquiry does and returns the supporting details (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by framing itself as the explanatory read ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'). It never mentions the enquiry_fields sibling, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 sequencing directive relative to submit_enquiry, telling the agent when this tool should be consulted. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or explicitly routing to enquiry_fields, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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 burden and does disclose the returned structure (key, label, type, required, help text, options), which is genuinely useful. It does not state that this is a read-only/side-effect-free call or describe any caching, variability, or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences, with the returned shape front-loaded and the downstream usage trailing. No filler 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?

Absent an output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields, which is the most important thing for a zero-parameter read tool. It stops short of showing a key format/example or clarifying its relationship to enquiry_describe.

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 nonetheless adds meaning by explaining that the returned field keys are the ones to use when keying answers for submit_enquiry, tying the output to the downstream call.

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?

It states a specific resource (the SEO services Glasgow enquiry fields) and enumerates exactly what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving the agent to infer which of the two 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 tells the agent how the output feeds submit_enquiry (answers keyed by field key), which implies the intended workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing between this and enquiry_describe.

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 validation behavior, the exact artifacts returned in step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the requirement to show these to the person, the delayed effect (email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry), and the precise meaning of consent. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation-style 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?

Front-loads the critical constraint (not a purchase) and then sequences the steps efficiently. It is dense and slightly run-on, and the consent sentence duplicates the schema's consent description, but no sentence is 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, so the description assumes responsibility for return values and does: summary, consent line, and confirmation token in step 1, plus the downstream email-verification consequence in step 2. An agent has everything needed to drive 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. The description still adds value: it explains that answers are keyed by field key sourced from the sibling tool enquiry_fields, and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 — information that frames the parameters within the two-call workflow rather than merely restating them.

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?

Names a specific verb (submit) and resource (enquiry to SEO services Glasgow), and immediately scopes it with explicit negatives: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish this from the helper siblings enquiry_describe and 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 an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 validates and returns summary/token, step 2 fires 'only if the person agrees'. It also states the gating condition for the subsequent email link, so the agent knows exactly when each call is appropriate and when it is not.

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