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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the tool's return content: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation mechanics. It also frames the broader enquiry as free, non-binding, and not a purchase, which adds useful behavioral context, though it does not discuss technical constraints like rate limits or output format.

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 and front-loads the key instruction 'Read first.' It avoids unnecessary repetition, though the title and description overlap slightly in framing the enquiry as not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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?

The description explains what the tool returns without an output schema, covering recipients, consent wording, and confirmation details. For a zero-parameter read/describe tool with no annotations, this is sufficiently complete, though the exact output structure remains unspecified.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and no schema gaps to compensate for. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a 4 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 explains what submit_enquiry does and returns supporting details such as recipients, consent wording, and confirmation flow. It distinguishes the enquiry from a purchase or guaranteed quote, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like enquiry_fields.

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' gives explicit timing guidance, positioning the tool before submit_enquiry. It does not name when-not-to-use conditions or alternate siblings such as enquiry_fields, but the intended context is clear.

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