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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns consent wording and confirmation details. It could go further by explicitly stating whether the tool itself is read-only or has side effects, but the non-purchase framing gives strong practical clarity.

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 concise and front-loaded with the most important guidance: 'Read first.' The two sentences are dense and useful, though there is slight overlap with the title's framing of 'an ENQUIRY with a human' and 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote.'

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 describe tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavioral constraints, and what it returns. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or describe their relationships, but it gives enough context for an agent to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to explain. The baseline of 4 for a parameterless tool applies; no additional parameter documentation is required.

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 what the tool does: it explains what submit_enquiry does on 409A Cost, explicitly framing it as an enquiry with human providers, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It is concrete and references a specific sibling, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with other sibling tools like calculator_describe or 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?

The opening 'Read first' is a clear ordering cue to use this before taking action, and the title/description explicitly rule out using it to purchase or obtain a guaranteed quote. However, it does not systematically explain when to choose this over calculate, calculator_describe, or enquiry_fields.

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