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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also states what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This is sufficient for an informational tool, though it doesn't explicitly say 'read-only' or describe any side effects, but given it's a description tool, that's implied.

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 concise and front-loaded with the 'Read first' instruction, then explains the purpose, clarifies exclusions, and lists return contents. Each sentence adds value; it's not overly verbose for the information conveyed.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and what it returns. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and why to call it. The only minor gap is not explicitly naming the sibling tools, but the purpose is clear from 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 nothing to describe beyond what the schema already shows (empty object). Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description adds no parameter information because none exists.

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 the tool's purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does on Malta Crypto Licence, including the nature of the enquiry (human providers, no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free). It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by explicitly saying it is not the submission action, and from enquiry_fields by focusing on the process and outcomes.

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 description opens with 'Read first,' which is an explicit usage instruction suggesting this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the context implies it is a prerequisite and distinguishes it from the actual submission tool.

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