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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it disclaims purchases, orders, payments, and guaranteed quotes, states it is free, and discloses what information is returned. This gives the agent confidence that invoking this tool is informational rather than side-effectful.

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, front-loaded with 'Read first', and uses plain language to pack meaningful behavioral caveats into three sentences. It loses a point because the title repeats the 'not a purchase / not guaranteed' point in the description, creating slight redundancy.

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 parameterless documentation/description tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the action being described, explains the real-world consequences (or lack thereof), and summarizes the returned content. There is no missing critical information an agent would need to decide whether to call it.

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 trivially complete and the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose rather than irrelevant parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as explicating submit_enquiry on Final Pay Calculator NZ, with a specific verb ('states plainly'), a specific resource ('what submit_enquiry does'), and a scope that distinguishes it from actually submitting. The title reinforces the contrast with a purchase or guaranteed quote, so an agent can immediately tell this is a description tool, not the action tool.

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 temporal usage instruction, and the description explicitly names submit_enquiry as the action it explains, implying this should be consulted before invoking that tool. It does not explicitly compare against calculator_describe or enquiry_fields, but the intended context is clear enough.

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