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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the process is free—clarifying the underlying behavior of submit_enquiry. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens, which is valuable context.

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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first,' immediately telling the agent how to use it. Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool states, what it does not do, and what it returns.

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 zero-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains its role, the scope of submit_enquiry, and the return contents. The main gap is that the description describes what submit_enquiry does rather than explicitly describing the format or mechanism of this tool's own output, though the title partly compensates.

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 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information to clarify. The description does not discuss parameters, but none exist, so this is a non-issue and the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 says this tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the Arizona Solar Cost Calculator, which makes clear it is an explanatory companion to the submission flow. It also differentiates itself by emphasizing this is 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' so an agent can distinguish it from submit_enquiry and calculate. It would be slightly stronger if it explicitly said 'this tool returns a description' as its primary verb.

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' directly signals that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry, giving clear contextual placement among siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the 'Read first' instruction plus the focus on explaining the enquiry process is enough to guide an agent.

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