site

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it declares this is a read operation ('Read first'), clarifies nothing is purchased or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. That directly addresses the key behavioral risk (an agent or user mistaking this for a commercial commitment). It omits any mention of auth needs or invocation constraints, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The imperative 'Read first' is front-loaded and immediately actionable, followed by tightly packed sentences covering semantics, guarantees, and return content. It is efficient, though it partially restates the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' phrasing.

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 convey what comes back, and it does list the payload (who receives the details, the consent wording, how the person confirms). For a zero-param informational tool this is sufficiently complete; only the relationship to enquiry_fields is left unstated.

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, and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies.

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 and resource: it describes/explains what submit_enquiry does (the enquiry process on Web design Poole). It names the sibling submit_enquiry explicitly and contrasts it ('nothing is bought, ordered or paid'), so an agent can tell this informational tool apart from the action tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other sibling 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 an ordering cue relative to submit_enquiry, implying you consult this before submitting. Beyond that there is no explicit when-to-use vs enquiry_fields, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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 it discloses the returned structure in detail, which matters because there is no output schema. It never explicitly states that the call is read-only or side-effect free, leaving a small gap for a zero-parameter lookup 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 with no filler; the output contents are front-loaded and the integration hint follows. 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?

For a parameterless tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value information and links forward to submit_enquiry. The only shortfall is the lack of differentiation from 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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of the key field is really about the shape of the response and the submit_enquiry payload, not about any input the caller must supply.

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 the resource (the Web design Poole enquiry fields) and enumerates exactly what each field carries (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so the agent knows this is a schema-discovery tool. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling enquiry_describe, so it isn't a full 5.

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 concrete downstream guidance: pass the retrieved answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, establishing the workflow order. It does not state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, so no explicit exclusions or alternatives are offered.

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 burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 is non-committal validation returning a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers an email requiring a click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent text the user must have agreed to. These are the behavioral traits an agent could not recover from the schema alone.

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 most important scoping disclaimer ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and organized as Step 1 / Step 2. It is a single dense block and restates the consent sentence already present in the schema, a minor redundancy that keeps it from a 5.

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 must explain both the protocol and the return values, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token; step 2 results in an email verification link before provider visibility. A caller has everything needed to run the 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; the description goes beyond by explaining the cross-parameter workflow — 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true at both steps, and 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 after user approval. It doesn't add value-level examples or types, so it lands just above baseline.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Web design Poole') and immediately bounds it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools (enquiry_fields supplies the field keys, enquiry_describe presumably describes the service), so an agent can select it without opening another 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 with the condition that gates each step: call Step 1 with answers + consent=true, show the user the summary and consent line, then call Step 2 only if the person agrees and only with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The when/when-not condition ('only if the person agrees') is stated, not inferred.

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