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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it covers key behavior: no purchase/order/payment, no guaranteed quote, free, human providers quote directly, and it returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly label enquiry_describe itself as read-only/no-side-effect, but 'Read first' and 'Returns' imply it is informational.

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 efficiently front-loaded with 'Read first' and each sentence adds distinct information. It is slightly verbose due to restating title concepts like 'not a purchase/not a guaranteed quote', but there is no wasted information.

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 0-parameter, no-output-schema describe tool, it is complete: it tells the agent what submit_enquiry does, what consequences it does not have, and what the returned explanation covers. An agent can correctly choose and invoke the tool with no additional context.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add on parameter meaning. Baseline for 0-parameter tools 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 clear, specific purpose: this tool 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on KnownVehicle', making it an explainer meta-tool. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by describing rather than executing, and the title reinforces the 'what you get' framing.

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 placement instruction: use this before submit_enquiry. The description also clarifies the conditions of the underlying enquiry (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote), so an agent can decide whether to proceed to submit_enquiry.

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