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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It openly states the behavioral boundaries: 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses what the tool returns—who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms—leaving little ambiguity about the tool's behavior or output.

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 front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first,' which immediately signals priority. Every sentence earns its place: what it does, what it does not do, and what it returns. There is no filler or 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, no-output-schema descriptive tool, this is complete. The description explains the tool's purpose, the scope (Missouri Foundation Repair Cost), the relationship to submit_enquiry, and the expected return content. An agent can understand exactly what it will get and why it matters without needing additional schema or annotation information.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the description correctly avoids parameter-level detail. The input schema is already complete and there is nothing meaningful to add. The baseline of 4 applies for a zero-parameter tool, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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 identifies a specific verb ('states plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Missouri Foundation Repair Cost'). It also differentiates itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by positioning itself as the descriptive companion rather than the action-taking tool. The title reinforces this by framing the tool as 'What you get' rather than a transaction.

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 an explicit usage directive telling the agent to consult this tool before proceeding. The description also clarifies what the underlying submit_enquiry flow is not (no purchase, no order, no payment), which helps an agent avoid misusing it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or spell out when not to use the tool, but the context is strong.

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