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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it states the operation is free, is not a purchase or payment, and guarantees no quote. It also discloses the return content, including who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms, leaving the agent with a clear behavioral model.

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, opening with the important instruction 'Read first.' Each sentence adds meaningful information: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns, with no 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?

For a zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells the agent the tool's purpose, the key exclusions, and the exact return contents. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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, so there is no parameter surface for the description to document. With schema coverage at 100% trivially and no params to explain, the baseline of 4 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 clearly states that this tool returns a plain-language explanation of what submit_enquiry does, with the instruction 'Read first.' It distinguishes itself from the actual submission action by clarifying nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, and no quote is guaranteed, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling compare/enquiry tools.

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' is an explicit cue that this tool should be consulted before proceeding, and the content frames it as the entry point for understanding submit_enquiry. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or compare against the sibling tools.

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