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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a good job: it states the tool is free, involves no purchase/order/payment, offers no guaranteed quote, and returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. It stops short of an explicit 'this call is read-only and has no side effects' statement, though the informational framing strongly implies it.

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: 'Read first' signals urgency, then the purpose, key exclusions, and returned content are each stated in a single efficient sentence. Every clause adds distinct value, and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool explains, what it does not guarantee, and exactly what the returned text covers, which is enough to invoke it correctly and set user expectations.

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 already fully documents everything there is to document. With no parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific semantics because none are needed.

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 opens with 'Read first' and explicitly states the tool's job: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does.' It names the exact scope (Conveyancing Fees NZ) and immediately distinguishes itself from the actual submission tool by saying nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed. The title further reinforces that this is an informational description, not a transaction.

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' is a clear directive that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry, and the description clarifies the outcome users should expect. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives or state conditions like 'use submit_enquiry to actually send' or 'use enquiry_fields for the form fields,' so the routing guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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