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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral context: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself has no side effects or describe its output format, but the 'describe' framing and zero parameters make the read-only nature reasonably clear.

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 concise and front-loaded with 'Read first', then states the core purpose and returns detail. It is slightly redundant with the title, which already conveys that this is about an enquiry rather than a purchase or guaranteed quote, but the description still earns its place by adding recipient, consent, and confirmation information.

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 tool does and what it returns: an explanation of submit_enquiry, recipient information, consent wording, and confirmation mechanics. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it could more strongly spell out the relationship to sibling tools such as calculator_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 the schema shows an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter semantics are fully moot and the schema coverage is complete.

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, specific purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on the Retirement Visa Calculator, including that it starts an enquiry with human providers and returns explanation details. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the descriptive counterpart, and the title reinforces that it is not a purchase or quote tool.

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' implies the tool should be used before interacting with submit_enquiry, and the description clarifies that it provides pre-submission context. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, leaving the routing mostly to inference.

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