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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also names what the return content covers (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not describe error/edge behavior, but the core behavioral profile is clearly conveyed.

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?

'Read first' is front-loaded and the two sentences earn their place by covering purpose and the key behavioral facts. The middle clause is somewhat run-on, but there is no filler.

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, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers both intent and what the response conveys (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). Little an agent needs in order to call it correctly 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 baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 makes clear this is a read-only explainer that 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns the consent/receipt details, which separates it from submit_enquiry itself. The verb (read/states/returns) and resource (the enquiry process description) are identifiable, though the opening framing describes the enquiry rather than the tool directly.

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 explicit ordering cue relative to submit_enquiry, implying this should be consulted before submitting. However, it never explicitly states when to use this versus the sibling enquiry_fields, nor any conditions or exclusions.

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