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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free—all behavioral details about the underlying enquiry process. It also specifies what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This is transparent about both the tool's output and the nature of the action it describes, though it could elaborate on any side effects of the describe tool itself, which are none.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences with zero filler. The critical guidance 'Read first' is front-loaded, followed by a precise explanation of what the tool returns. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 documentation tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool does and what it returns. It covers the key behavioral aspects (no purchase, no guarantee, free) and the return content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation). There is nothing an agent needs to know to use this tool correctly that 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose and return content rather than parameter details, which are nonexistent. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it by providing the expected return information clearly.

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 the tool's function: it describes what submit_enquiry does, specifically that it starts an enquiry with human providers. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_* and submit_enquiry by being the 'read first' documentation tool. The verb 'states plainly' is specific and the resource (submit_enquiry behavior) is 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 opening 'Read first' signals it should be used before invoking submit_enquiry, providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list (especially submit_enquiry) makes the intended sequence obvious. It gives no explicit exclusions, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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