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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns consent wording and confirmation details. This gives an agent clear expectations about side effects and output content.

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 two compact sentences with zero wasted words. The 'Read first' directive is front-loaded, followed by a plain statement of purpose and a concise summary of returned information. Every sentence earns its place.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the tool's purpose, frames the enquiry process, and lists the key return contents. It does not explicitly state the tool itself is read-only, but that is strongly implied by 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does.'

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 parameter semantics are not applicable; the baseline of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation because there are no parameters to document.

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 identifies enquiry_describe as a descriptive/overview tool for submit_enquiry, using a specific verb ('States plainly') and naming the resource (submit_enquiry on Compare Trade Software). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on explaining the enquiry process rather than performing purchases or comparisons.

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 opening 'Read first' is an explicit directive to use this tool before acting, establishing clear context for when to invoke it. It clarifies what submit_enquiry does and what it does not do, but it does not explicitly enumerate alternative tools or when not to use it beyond the implied 'before submitting an enquiry.'

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