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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the transparency burden and does it well. It discloses that an enquiry is initiated with human providers, that nothing is bought or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the operation is free. It also tells the agent what information is returned, including consent wording and confirmation details.

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-loaded with the most important instruction, 'Read first.' Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and key behaviors are stated plainly without padding. The structure moves from purpose to exclusions to return contents in a logical order.

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 no-parameter documentation tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what the related submit_enquiry tool does, what behavioral caveats apply, and what information will be returned. An agent can confidently use this tool without 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, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description adds value by explaining what the tool returns, which is more relevant than parameter details here. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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: this tool explains what submit_enquiry does, rather than performing the enquiry itself. It names the sibling tool it documents and clearly frames the tool as a read-first explanation. The title reinforces the purpose without being the only evidence.

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 words 'Read first' give clear usage guidance: read this before using submit_enquiry. It also sets expectations about what the sibling tool does not do, which helps an agent avoid misuse. It does not explicitly mention enquiry_fields, but the guidance is still contextually clear.

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