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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free,' which reassures about the underlying submit_enquiry behavior. It also specifies what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation process), giving the agent a clear picture of the output. It does not mention side effects, but for a read-only descriptor, this is sufficient.

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 concise, with two sentences that front-load the key point ('Read first') and then state the tool's function and return content. It avoids fluff, though the phrasing 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' could be tightened. Overall, 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema descriptive tool, the description fully covers what an agent needs: it explains the purpose, the scope, and the specific information returned. There are no missing elements that would prevent correct invocation or interpretation.

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 is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none. No compensation needed, and the description does not introduce confusion about parameters.

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 that the tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Freight Forwarder Finder, and that it returns who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is a clear purpose, though the tool's own role as a pre-submission informational tool could be more explicit. It distinguishes itself from siblings like submit_enquiry by being descriptive rather than action-oriented.

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' implies the tool should be used before submitting an enquiry, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. It provides contextual guidance (it describes the submission process) but lacks clear exclusions or comparison with sibling tools like compare_options or enquiry_fields.

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