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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and succeeds: it discloses that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it describes the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation path). This is strong behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.

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 packs the key facts into a few tight sentences without repetition or filler. Every sentence adds distinct value.

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, the definition fully covers what the tool does, which sibling it supports, what it does not do, and what information it returns. No essential context is missing.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The description nonetheless adds relevant context about what the tool explains/returns, so baseline 4 applies.

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 identifies a specific function: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' — starting an enquiry with human providers — and distinguishes itself from purchase/quote outcomes. As a describe-type tool, it clearly differentiates from the sibling submit_enquiry by being the read-first explanation.

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' gives an explicit usage cue to consult this before acting, and the description frames it as the explanatory counterpart to submit_enquiry. It doesn't explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields or state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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