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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns specific informational outputs. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but for a read-only descriptive tool this is substantial.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first.' and uses three sentences without obvious filler. It is slightly wordy in listing what it states and returns, but every sentence adds useful 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?

There is no output schema, but the description outlines the kind of information returned (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method), which gives the agent enough context to know what to expect. It is complete for a simple, zero-parameter descriptive tool.

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 is empty. No parameter semantics are needed, and the baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.

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 clearly states this tool describes what submit_enquiry does and returns recipient/consent/confirmation details. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry (descriptive vs. action) and from a purchase. It does not mention enquiry_fields, so sibling differentiation is slightly incomplete.

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 'Read first.' explicitly positions this as a prerequisite informational tool before submitting an enquiry. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not name alternatives or describe when not to use it.

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