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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns who receives details, the consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives the agent critical expectations about costs, guarantees, and privacy-related behavior.

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 about 55 words across three sentences and is front-loaded with 'Read first.' Every sentence contributes, though there is minor redundancy between 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'it is free,' and the title partially repeats the same assurances.

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 simple 0-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it defines purpose, flow mechanics, non-financial nature, and return contents. It could go one step further by explicitly stating that the tool itself does not submit an enquiry, but 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' largely cover that.

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 0 parameters, so there is no schema coverage burden. The description appropriately focuses on what the tool communicates rather than parameters, which satisfies the baseline for parameterless tools.

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 clear purpose with a specific verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and enumerates exactly what the enquiry flow entails and returns. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning itself as the 'Read first' explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry, clearly separate from checker_*, enquiry_fields, and the submit action itself.

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' is an explicit contextual instruction: the agent should consult this before acting on submit_enquiry. It conveys when to use the tool (before engaging with the enquiry flow), but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a full 5.

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