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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is anonymously callable and that sales will follow up within 24 hours, but it does not say whether a lead record is created, whether duplicate submissions are possible, or what the caller receives back.

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 main sentence is compact and front-loads the anonymous-callability tag plus the scope. However, the appended '本体: corp → Action: inquiry' is redundant boilerplate that consumes space without informing the agent.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and 7 undocumented parameters leave significant gaps. The description covers the what and the follow-up SLA but not the input contract an agent needs to construct a valid call.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It never indicates that company, contact and phone are mandatory, nor clarifies what budget, employees, city or message expect (units, formats, free 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: submit an enterprise business inquiry, covering cooperation, product info, pricing and complaints. It is distinguishable from nearby siblings like plan_quotation or corp_contact. The trailing 'corp → Action: inquiry' line is metadata that merely restates the name, adding no clarity.

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 says enterprise customers with any question may submit, which implies the trigger condition, but it never says when to prefer this over plan_quotation (explicit quote requests are listed here as well) or corp_contact. There are no exclusions or named alternatives.

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