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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses domain facts (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote) and what it returns, but does not explicitly state that the tool itself is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no special permissions. Tool-specific behavioral traits are left to inference.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and then efficiently covers the purpose and return values in a few sentences. It is mostly concise, though the phrasing 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' is slightly meta and could be more direct.

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?

Given no output schema and no parameters, the description adequately explains what is returned (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). It could additionally note that the tool is static or requires no input, but it is largely complete for a simple informational tool.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. Baseline for zero parameters is 4.

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 verb (states/returns) and resource (what submit_enquiry does on Yacht Charter Quotes, plus consent details). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the informational tool, but does not mention the sibling enquiry_fields, so differentiation is incomplete.

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 only usage guidance is the front-loaded 'Read first,' implying it should be used before submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state when to use this over enquiry_fields or submit_enquiry itself, and offers no exclusions or alternatives.

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