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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral context: nothing is bought or paid for, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This goes beyond a simple 'returns summary' statement and helps the agent set user expectations.

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 short, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence contributes meaning. It efficiently covers purpose, scope, exclusions, cost, and return content without 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-input, no-output-schema documentation tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the key behavioral caveats. An agent would know exactly what to expect and how to use the result.

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 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and nothing in the description is misleading or missing regarding inputs.

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 role: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on 409A Providers and returns the details of that enquiry process. It distinguishes itself from the action-oriented submit_enquiry sibling by explicitly positioning itself as the pre-action explainer, and clarifies what it is not ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote').

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 instruction 'Read first' gives clear usage context: this should be used before acting on submit_enquiry. It implies when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use comparably named siblings like enquiry_fields or compare_options. This is a clear but not fully explicit routing.

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