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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does describe the informational output ('returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms'), but it never explicitly states that calling this tool has no side effects or does not itself submit an enquiry. The bulk of the text describes submit_enquiry's behavior, creating mild ambiguity about the describe tool's own 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?

Two sentences with no filler: 'Read first' front-loads the usage warning, the middle sentence states the core purpose, and the final sentence summarizes the return value. Every clause 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 parameterless, annotation-less describe tool, the description covers what it does, what it returns, and when to read it. It is nearly complete, but an explicit 'this tool does not submit anything' would fully remove the potential confusion with submit_enquiry.

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 has zero properties, so there are no parameters to document; the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information, which is appropriate here.

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 identifies a specific verb ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Long Service Leave Calculator'), and makes the tool's informational role clear against siblings like submit_enquiry. The title and phrase 'Read first' reinforce that this is a pre-submission explainer, not the 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 a direct usage cue: call this before acting on submit_enquiry. It names the tool it explains, giving clear context, though it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives such as calculator_describe or enquiry_fields.

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