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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states that the tool describes rather than performs an action, and discloses the key facts users need: nothing is bought or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and it is free. It also summarizes what is returned. It could explicitly say 'this tool does not submit an enquiry,' but 'states' and 'returns' make the behavior sufficiently clear.

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' and efficiently moves from purpose to key caveats to return content. Each sentence adds value, though some wording overlaps with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote').

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the tool's role, the domain, the important caveats, and what information is returned. An agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly and know what to expect.

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 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a clear verb ('states') and specific resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Crypto Licence Costs'), and distinguishes itself from the actual action tool submit_enquiry by explicitly framing itself as the read-first explainer. This is not a tautology and an agent can tell it apart from sibling 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?

The opening 'Read first' clearly signals when to use this tool: before submit_enquiry, to understand what will happen. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose and positioning relative to submit_enquiry are clear.

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