inquire_service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: it mentions a cost ('Costs $0.001 from your pre-funded balance') and a prerequisite ('Requires API key'), which are not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on response format, error handling, or other operational traits.

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 description is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each earn their place: stating the purpose, cost, usage context, and prerequisites without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a transactional tool with cost and prerequisites), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage, cost, and prerequisites, but could benefit from mentioning response expectations or error cases to be fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides for 'service_id' or 'brief', such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Open a conversation thread about a service on the402.ai.' It specifies the action (open a conversation thread) and resource (service), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'get_thread' in terms of scope or intent.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: 'to ask questions, request custom quotes, or start a negotiation with a provider before purchasing.' It implies usage for pre-purchase inquiries, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools.

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