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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it states nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also discloses what is returned (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method), though it does not enumerate auth or rate-limit behavior.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first', then efficiently covers purpose, side effects, and return contents in five short sentences. Every sentence adds relevant information with no repetition or filler.

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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's purpose, its non-transactional nature, and the kind of information it returns. A minor gap is the absence of an explicit statement that it is read-only and idempotent, though this is strongly implied.

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 there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond the schema's empty object. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Bags That Pay'), and distinguishes this read-only informational tool from the action tool submit_enquiry. It also explicitly rules out purchase, order, payment and guaranteed quote, so an agent can tell it apart from transactional siblings.

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 a clear usage context, positioning this tool before engaging with submit_enquiry. It references the related action tool but does not explicitly name when not to use it or list alternative tools for different enquiry-related tasks.

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