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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavior: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It stops short of explicitly stating that this tool itself has no side effects, but 'states plainly' and 'returns' make the informational nature evident.

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 three tight sentences, each earning its place: the imperative 'Read first', the core semantics, and the output summary. It is front-loaded and contains 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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the linked action does, what the user receives, and what the tool returns. A more explicit statement that this call itself performs no submission or commitment would make it fully complete.

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, so the schema already covers everything; no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds value by explaining the output content rather than parameter meaning.

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 specifies a precise purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on SR&ED Finder, rather than performing the submission itself. It clearly distinguishes this describe-tool from the submit_enquiry sibling by framing itself as the 'read first' companion.

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 instruction 'Read first' explicitly signals when to use this tool: before taking action with submit_enquiry. It does not enumerate alternative tools like compare_options or enquiry_fields, but the placement and framing make the intended use clear.

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