site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states the enquiry is free, nothing is bought/ordered/paid, and no quote is guaranteed. It also previews the returned content (recipient info, consent wording, confirmation process), though it does not address permissions or access 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?

It is front-loaded with 'Read first' and reasonably brief, but the non-transactional point is repeated three ways ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free'), which adds redundancy.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what information it surfaces. No annotations are needed for a read-only explanatory tool, and the description covers the essential behavioral caveats.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details and focuses on what the tool returns instead.

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 clearly identifies this as an explanatory/read-first tool that describes what submit_enquiry does and returns details on recipients, consent wording, and confirmation. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the informational counterpart, though it does not explicitly differentiate 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?

The opening 'Read first' gives explicit usage timing relative to submit_enquiry, and the contrast with purchase/quote clarifies what this tool is not for. It does not name enquiry_fields as an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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 behavioral burden, and it steps in by describing the return shape (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options) despite there being no output schema. It does not explicitly state the operation is a safe read with no side effects, but for a zero-param query tool that gap is minor.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the field enumeration comes first and the downstream usage note second. It is dense but front-loaded and 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 annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the returned field attributes and connecting the output to submit_enquiry. Only the explicit absence of side effects / read-only nature is unstated, which is a small residual gap.

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 rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail because there are none to document, though it usefully notes that answers should be keyed by the returned field key when used downstream.

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 enquiry form's fields) and enumerates exactly what each field record contains, making it easy to distinguish from enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry. It lacks an explicit verb, but the enum-style return list makes the read-only listing purpose unambiguous.

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 ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), which hints this tool should be consulted before submitting. However, it never explicitly states when to call it versus enquiry_describe, and no exclusions are given, so usage is only implied.

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 does so: it describes the two-call state machine, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), that submission follows step 2, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also spells out the exact consent semantics.

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 crucial 'NOT a purchase' caveat and organized as step 1 / step 2, which is easy to follow. It is dense but slightly repetitive, restating 'consent=true' and the consent line across both steps.

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 explaining exactly what step 1 returns and what happens after step 2, including the email-link verification gate. An agent has everything needed to drive the multi-call flow 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 real meaning: it ties 'answers' keys to the enquiry_fields sibling, explains that 'consent=true' encodes agreement to the quoted statement, and clarifies that 'confirmation' comes from the step-1 token.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Web design Basingstoke') and immediately disambiguates intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The task is clearly distinct from the sibling read tools 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate, step 2 only after the person approves, with the confirmation token. It also states the gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and what must be shown to the user before proceeding.

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