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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so excellently. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and what information is returned.

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 compact and front-loaded with the critical guidance 'Read first.' Every sentence earns its place: it explains the tool's purpose, explicitly negates purchase/payment/guarantee assumptions, and summarizes the returned content without redundancy.

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 descriptive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fully self-sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it doesn't do, and what information will be returned, leaving no critical 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 has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the parameter space by definition. The description adds meaningful context about what the tool returns and its non-action nature, exceeding the baseline expectation for a parameterless tool.

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 identifies the tool as an explanatory companion to submit_enquiry, stating that it 'describes what submit_enquiry does' rather than performing the submission. It is immediately distinguishable from submit_enquiry (which actually starts an enquiry) and enquiry_fields (which likely handles field details).

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' explicitly signals that this tool should be used before interacting with submit_enquiry, giving the agent clear context for when to call it. It does not spell out exclusions or compare against enquiry_fields, but the intended usage is evident.

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