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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by stating that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; and it is free. It also discloses what the tool returns. It could more explicitly say that invoking enquiry_describe itself has no side effects, but 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' makes this adequately clear.

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 each sentence adds useful information: purpose, non-purchase guarantees, free nature, and return contents. It is slightly repetitive with the title's mention of 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' but it is still compact and well organized.

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?

Given the tool is simple, has zero parameters, and no output schema, the description adequately explains its purpose and return content. It tells the agent what submit_enquiry does, what is not guaranteed, and what information will be returned. It could more explicitly relate itself to enquiry_fields, but overall it is complete enough for safe invocation.

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 fully covered by an empty properties object, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for a no-parameter tool is appropriate.

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 that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does, including that it starts an enquiry with human providers and returns consent/confirmation details. The title is somewhat confusing because it reads like a description of the enquiry outcome rather than the describe tool's own purpose, but the description resolves this.

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 phrase 'Read first' strongly implies this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry, which provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the priority hint is meaningful and sufficient for a description tool.

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