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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms,' indicating it produces informational output. It also clarifies that the described process involves no purchase, no guaranteed quote, and is free, giving the agent a clear picture of what to expect. The description does not reveal any side effects because the tool itself is purely descriptive, which is appropriately disclosed.

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 a single paragraph that is well-structured, front-loading the key instruction 'Read first' and then succinctly summarizing the tool's purpose and output. It is efficient, covering the essential points without extraneous detail. It earns a 4 rather than 5 because it could be slightly tightened (e.g., merging the first and second sentences), but it remains clear and scannable.

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 description fully covers what an agent needs: the purpose (explaining submit_enquiry), the scope (what is and isn't included), and the return content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation process). There is no ambiguity about how to invoke it or what to expect, making it complete for the agent's decision-making.

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 coverage is trivially 100% and there is no parameter documentation to supplement. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. It focuses on the tool's output and context rather than inputs, which is appropriate since there are none.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: it describes what submit_enquiry does on Toll Blenders, distinguishing it from actually submitting an enquiry. It clearly separates this descriptive tool from sibling tools like submit_enquiry and enquiry_fields by framing it as a 'read first' guide. The verb 'describes' plus the specific resource (submit_enquiry behavior) makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 description opens with 'Read first,' which directly instructs when to use this tool: before using submit_enquiry. It further explains what the tool provides (clarifications about the enquiry process, what is not included, and what the user will receive), making the context clear. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, the 'read first' directive and the contrast with submit_enquiry imply it should be used as a precursor, which is sufficient guidance for this passive informational tool.

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