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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does a fair job: it discloses that nothing is bought or paid, no quote is guaranteed, the service is free, and that the response covers recipients, consent wording, and confirmation. This is meaningful context an agent needs to set user expectations, though it omits any auth or read-only framing.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the directive "Read first." followed by the substantive content. The final sentence is slightly list-like (recipients, consent wording, confirmation) but every clause 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, no-output-schema informational tool, the description covers what it returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation) and the nature of the enquiry. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 is nothing for the description to document; the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does, and clarifies the enquiry is with human providers, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It is distinguishable from the sibling submit_enquiry (the action) and enquiry_fields (the field list), though the verb is descriptive rather than an action on a resource.

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 an explicit ordering directive that tells the agent to consult this before submitting an enquiry. It does not name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context for when to use it is clear.

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