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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation flow) and asserts the enquiry is free with no purchase or guaranteed quote, but those statements describe the subject matter rather than the tool's own side-effect profile, and it never confirms explicitly that the call itself is read-only and non-mutating.

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?

Two dense but purposeful sentences with the ordering cue 'Read first' front-loaded, then the substance. Minimal waste, though the phrasing is slightly circuitous in places ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does').

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, read-only descriptive tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what domain it concerns, what content is returned, and that no purchase occurs. Only explicit confirmation of the tool's own non-mutating nature is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to explain; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 clear purpose: this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Outsourced IT Quotes, including what an enquiry is and what it returns. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by being the explanatory counterpart, though the naming ('enquiry_describe') could be confused with enquiry_fields and the description does not explicitly differentiate the two.

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' gives an implicit ordering cue suggesting it should be read before submit_enquiry, which is a genuine usage hint. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus enquiry_fields, nor any exclusion conditions, leaving usage largely to inference.

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