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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses side-effect-relevant facts for the enquiry process — nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free — and confirms it returns consent wording and confirmation details. It does not, however, explicitly state that this descriptor tool itself has no side effects or how the returned content is scoped.

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?

It is compact and front-loaded with 'Read first' as the directing statement, followed by a dense but single-purpose block covering subject, scope, and returns. Minor ambiguity about whether it describes itself or submit_enquiry, but no padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain what comes back, and it does: the recipients of details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. For a zero-parameter descriptor over a complex enquiry flow, this is largely adequate.

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. The description correctly adds no parameter noise and instead spends its words on what the tool conceptually describes.

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 frames itself as a read-only explainer ('Read first') and details what it returns, but it describes its subject in terms of 'what submit_enquiry does' rather than clearly stating 'this tool returns a description of the enquiry flow.' An agent can infer the purpose, but the verb+resource pairing is muddled and it leans on a sibling's behavior rather than its own.

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 implied ordering relative to submit_enquiry, which is a genuine usage cue. However, it never explicitly names submit_enquiry as the alternative to call next, nor states when-not to call this tool, leaving selection largely to inference.

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