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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It also clarifies that no purchase or payment is involved, which is relevant context for the enquire-submission workflow.

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 'Read first', which immediately signals intent. It packs the key points into a few short sentences without excessive verbosity, though the title is a bit long and overlaps slightly with the description.

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 0-parameter, read-only descriptive tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent will get: the nature of the enquiry, free/non-binding status, and the returned details. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but it is complete enough for correct 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 empty, so the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. There is no parameter information to add, and the description correctly focuses on the tool's output behavior instead.

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 role: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Which M&A Advisor, and the title emphasizes it is about getting an enquiry with a human. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by framing itself as an explanatory/read-first tool, though the verb 'describes' 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?

'Read first' gives a clear positional hint that this should be used before action, but it does not explicitly name when not to use it or directly compare against siblings like submit_enquiry or enquiry_fields. The usage guidance is implied rather than fully stated.

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