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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states what the tool returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method) and clarifies it is not a purchase or quote. While it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or 'no side effects,' it is clearly a descriptive tool with no side effects, which is adequately conveyed.

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 a single, compact paragraph that front-loads the key instruction ('Read first') and then delivers the purpose and output content without any fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to use it (before submit_enquiry), what it explains (DIFC vs ADGM differences, no purchase/quote, free), and what it returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation). Nothing critical 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter explanation is needed, and the description adds no parameter-related information, which is appropriate.

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 the tool describes what submit_enquiry does, distinguishing it from the actual submission tool and other siblings like checker_*. It specifies the resource (submit_enquiry) and the exact content covered (DIFC vs ADGM, no purchase/quote, returns recipient details, consent, confirmation).

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 phrase 'Read first' provides clear guidance to use this tool before submit_enquiry. It implies a prerequisite but does not explicitly exclude other tools. However, as a descriptive meta-tool, there is no real alternative, so the usage context is clear enough.

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