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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden, and it does well by disclosing that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the service is free. It also tells the agent what information is returned: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens.

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 most important instruction ('Read first') followed by the tool's informational purpose. It includes a few helpful specifics about return content without excessive verbosity, though the title already conveys some of the same 'not a purchase, not guaranteed' messaging.

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, no-output-schema descriptive tool, the description is complete: it specifies the operation it describes, the behavioral expectations, and what the response will convey. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and understand the result.

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 parameter-level documentation is not needed. The schema covers this vacuously, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add.

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 a specific purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Which Field Service, framing itself as the descriptive counterpart to that action. It also clearly differentiates from the sibling submit_enquiry tool by emphasizing the outcome is an enquiry with human providers, not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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' is explicit advice to use this tool before submit_enquiry, which is strong usage guidance for a descriptive companion tool. It does not mention the other sibling tools, but they are not direct alternatives to this one, so the guidance is adequate.

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