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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool is informational by stating it 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms,' and it clarifies what the underlying action does not do. It does not explicitly say 'this tool has no side effects,' but the return-focused wording implies a read-only description.

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 key instruction: 'Read first.' Every sentence adds distinct value: what the underlying tool does, what it does not do, and what this describe tool returns. There is 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 describe/meta tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns and explains the key facts about the associated submit_enquiry action, including consent and confirmation, so an agent can call it correctly.

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 baseline is 4. The schema coverage is vacuous, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns rather than parameter details, which are unnecessary here.

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 exactly what the tool does: it explains what submit_enquiry does, and explicitly contrasts it with a purchase or guaranteed quote. This clearly identifies the resource (the enquiry action) and distinguishes the tool from the sibling calculator and submission tools.

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' provides a clear usage context: this is a prerequisite overview for submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly mention sibling alternatives like calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, but the 'Read first' framing gives the agent enough guidance on when to invoke this tool.

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