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 behavioral facts: nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. 'Read first' implies a safe read operation. It still doesn't state its own side-effect profile or freshness/stability of the returned copy explicitly, so the coverage is partial.

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 'Read first' imperative, then the substantive content. It is appropriately short for a no-argument informational tool, though the sentence about 'who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms' is slightly listy.

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 and no annotations, the description usefully sketches the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method), which compensates for the missing output schema. It is largely complete for a trivial zero-parameter tool.

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; there is nothing for the description to document and it correctly adds no parameter noise.

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 makes clear this is an informational/descriptive tool that explains what submit_enquiry does on 'Web design Sussex', and it names the sibling it relates to. It doesn't distinguish itself from enquiry_fields, which is the other obvious sibling, so an agent must infer the split between 'describe' and '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 explicit sequencing hint, implying the agent should call this before submit_enquiry. However, it never states when to prefer enquiry_fields, nor any exclusion, so the routing guidance is only 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 and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it by disclosing the returned payload shape (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options). It implicitly behaves as a read/metadata fetch, but never explicitly states that it is read-only or that it 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned resource and followed by the actionable instruction for using the result. No filler, no 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 no-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field inventory an agent needs to consume the result and tells it how to feed that result into submit_enquiry. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any explicit statement of read-only behavior.

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. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 Web design Sussex enquiry) and enumerates exactly what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It links to the sibling submit_enquiry as the consumer of the output, so an agent can tell it apart from submit_enquiry. It does not, however, differentiate itself from enquiry_describe, the other read-side sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' tells the agent this is the prerequisite discovery step before submission. There is no explicit when-to-use versus enquiry_describe, and no when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance.

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 does this well: it discloses the validation-and-token round trip, the email-confirmation gate before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent. It stops short of stating token lifetime, whether answers must be resubmitted identically, or error behavior, which keeps it from 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 key disqualifier ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded, and the two steps are laid out in order with no filler. It is dense and somewhat long, but every clause (token, consent wording, email gate) carries information an agent needs to invoke correctly.

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 cover both safety and returns, and it does: it describes what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the person receives after step 2 (a verification email link). Nothing essential for a correct two-phase invocation 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 value by tying 'answers' to the sibling tool enquiry_fields ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields') and by clarifying that consent=true is required in both steps and the confirmation token only in step 2. That step-aware usage goes beyond the per-parameter schema text.

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 Sussex') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misclassification. An agent can distinguish it from the read-only siblings enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields at a glance.

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=true to validate, then step 2 only after the person approves the summary, re-sending answers, consent=true and the token. It also states the precondition for consent (the person has read and agreed to the named consent line), so the when-and-how is fully specified.

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