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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it clarifies that no purchase is made, no payment occurs, no quote is guaranteed, and the enquiry is free. It also discloses who receives details, the consent wording, and the confirmation mechanism, making side effects and expectations 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, front-loaded with 'Read first,' and every sentence adds essential information. It covers behavior, exclusions, pricing, and return contents without any fluff or repetitive padding beyond the intentionally emphasized safety caveats.

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 describe tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent why the tool exists, what it returns, what it does not do, and how it relates to submit_enquiry, leaving no meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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 no parameter documentation is needed; the schema already covers everything. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's informational output rather than parameter details, matching the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 explains what submit_enquiry does, distinguishing it from the actual submission tool and other siblings like enquiry_fields. The verb 'States' and the explicit reference to submit_enquiry make the tool's role unmistakable.

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' is an explicit cue to use this tool before submitting an enquiry, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, but the prerequisite relationship to submit_enquiry is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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