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 behavior: nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns recipient/consent/confirmation details. For a read-only descriptive tool this is solid disclosure, though it could note that calling it has no side effects on the enquiry itself.

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 opens with the useful 'Read first.' lead, but the second sentence is dense and meanders through disclaimers ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free') that partially restate the title. The framing as 'what submit_enquiry does' adds words without adding information about this tool.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it describes what content comes back (recipients, consent wording, confirmation process) and the key behavioral facts. A little more on the exact shape of the returned text would close the remaining 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. No parameter-level ambiguity exists and the description correctly implies a parameterless informational 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?

The description does convey that this tool returns human-readable explanation content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation steps), but it frames the purpose as 'what submit_enquiry does' rather than what this tool itself does, which blurs the line between this describe tool and its sibling. The distinction from enquiry_fields is never made.

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 that this should be consulted before the other enquiry tools, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no when-not condition and no differentiation from the sibling enquiry_fields, only a passing reference to submit_enquiry.

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 behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (the six field attributes) and the keying contract for downstream submission, which is genuinely helpful. It says nothing about mutability, permissions, or whether the field set is static, though for a simple field-listing read there is little risk to disclose.

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 and purposeful: the first declares contents, the second declares how the output is consumed. The field enumeration is slightly list-like but each item is meaningful, so nothing is wasted.

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 must describe the return value — and it does, enumerating all field attributes plus the option list. Combined with the pointer to submit_enquiry, an agent has enough to call it and use the result. Only the missing contrast with enquiry_describe keeps it short of complete.

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 correctly adds no parameter guidance because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 concretely what the tool returns — key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options for the enquiry's fields — which is a specific resource with enumerated contents. It also ties itself to the sibling submit_enquiry, but it does not distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, so its identity against the full sibling set is only partly resolved.

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" implies this is the discovery step that precedes submission, giving an implicit when-to-use. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer enquiry_describe instead, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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 present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a token, that step 2 actually submits, that the enquirer must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, and defines exactly what consent attests to. Side effects, ordering, and a precondition 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-loaded with purpose and disclaimers, then proceeds in call order (Step 1, Step 2), so the sequence is easy to follow. It is a dense single block with some restatement of the consent wording, which costs a little tightness but every sentence is 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, so the description must describe returns, and it does: a summary, the consent line, and a confirmation token, plus the downstream email-verification state. Combined with full schema coverage for a three-parameter tool, an agent has everything needed to execute 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 description coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and 'confirmation' is the token produced by step 1 rather than an arbitrary string. It does not add type/format nuance for the nested answer values.

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 Web design Cheltenham') and immediately delimits what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly separable from the sibling read/describe tools (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe) without opening a 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 invocation conditions for each of the two calls, including the gating condition 'only if the person agrees', and points to enquiry_fields as the source of field keys. It stops short of naming the sibling tools as alternatives for the pre-submission steps, so routing between siblings is only implied.

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