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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose meaningful traits: nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the call is free. It also enumerates what the returned content covers (recipient, consent wording, confirmation). It stops short of explicitly declaring the call side-effect free or stable/static, but the disclosure is well above what annotations would have provided.

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?

It is front-loaded with the actionable cue 'Read first,' which is good, but the body repeats itself: 'Procedure Cost Checker' appears twice and 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' overlaps with 'it is free.' Trimming the redundancy would make the same points in roughly half the words.

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 covers what the call returns and its cost/obligation implications, which is the substance an agent needs. It is close to complete; only an explicit statement that the call has no side effects would fully close the gap.

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 description has no parameter semantics to add and the baseline applies. The empty schema leaves 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 an informational/read tool that 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.' That distinguishes it from the sibling submit_enquiry, which actually files the enquiry. The phrasing is slightly indirect (it describes another tool rather than saying 'this tool returns documentation'), but an agent can still tell what it gets.

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' is an explicit sequencing instruction that positions this call before submit_enquiry, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs. There is no stated when-not condition or named alternative for the descriptive case, but the read-before-submit cue covers the main routing decision.

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