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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and delivers: it states that nothing is 'bought, ordered or paid,' no quote is guaranteed, the process is free, and it returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and the confirmation method. This conveys the non-committal, safe nature of the described flow. It stops short of explicitly declaring that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects, but the content is strongly informative.

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?

Three sentences and roughly 60 words, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence. The triadic phrasing 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid' is slightly emphatic but earns its place by clarifying the non-commercial nature. No filler or irrelevant detail.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does convey the return content. But it leaves the agent to infer when to surface this content to the user and how it relates to the sibling enquiry_fields tool, which plausibly returns similar information. A short note on the tool's read-only nature would complete it.

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 with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description instead clarifies what the tool returns — recipients, consent wording, and confirmation flow — which is the only semantic content an agent could need. There are no parameters left unexplained.

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 the tool's purpose: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Trades SEO Agency,' naming a specific resource and the descriptive action. It clearly connotes a read-and-explain tool rather than a mutating one. However, most text describes submit_enquiry's behavior rather than enquiry_describe's own function, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 directive 'Read first' implies the tool should be invoked before taking action (i.e., before submit_enquiry), which gives meaningful sequencing guidance. But it never states explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use conditions, and it does not address sibling alternatives such as enquiry_fields or the comparison tools.

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