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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it states what the tool returns, clarifies that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that the response includes recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. This is highly transparent.

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 the most important instruction ('Read first'). Every sentence adds distinct value: what the tool does, the key caveats, and what the returned content covers. No wasted words.

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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's purpose, return content, and semantic boundaries. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether and when to call it.

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 are no parameter semantics to document. The schema coverage is 100% and the description needs no parameter details; 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 states a specific verb ('states plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling submit_enquiry tool. It also explains the core semantic distinction: an enquiry with human providers, not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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' gives an explicit context cue: this tool should be used before submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly name the alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know this is preliminary/descriptive rather than an action tool.

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