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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states this is informational: it describes what submit_enquiry does, emphasizes that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, notes no quote is guaranteed, and says it is free. It also reveals what the call returns (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method), though it does not explicitly say 'this call performs no external side effects'.

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 tight and front-loaded: it opens with the imperative 'Read first', then delivers the essential facts in two sentences. Every clause adds value—scope, non-purchase, free, non-guaranteed, and output contents—with no filler or repetition.

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, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent what the tool does, what content it returns, and the key limitations. There are no missing parameters or return-value expectations that an agent would need to call 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 an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 applies since the schema fully covers the call signature and the description adds no parameter-related confusion.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Malta VAT Registration, clearly identifying the tool as a descriptive companion rather than the action itself. The title reinforces the non-transactional scope ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), and the description distinguishes it from submit_enquiry by clarifying nothing is bought, ordered, or paid.

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 explicitly says 'Read first', which instructs the agent to consume this tool before calling submit_enquiry. It provides clear context for when to use the description tool, though it does not explicitly contrast it with the checker_* siblings or state when not to use them.

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