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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and meets it: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool returns details about recipients, consent wording, and confirmation. This gives an agent a clear safety and expectations profile without needing annotations.

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: 'Read first' signals priority, then the main purpose, key caveats, and return contents are each given in a single lean sentence. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundancy.

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 zero-parameter description tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool reveals about submit_enquiry, the non-purchase/non-guarantee nature of the enquiry, and exactly what information is returned. No important gap remains for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly focuses on output and behavior instead.

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 opens with 'Read first' and explicitly says the tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does', naming the exact verb, resource, and domain (Malta Stamp Duty). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools: it describes the submission workflow rather than performing it, and the title reinforces the outcome of an enquiry.

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?

'Read first' provides a clear contextual cue to use this tool before submit_enquiry, and the description explains the enquiry process so an agent can decide whether submitting is appropriate. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use scenarios or name alternative tools beyond submit_enquiry, so it stops short of a 5.

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