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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool returns—who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method—and clarifies that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and no quote is guaranteed. This gives the agent a solid understanding of the tool's informational nature.

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 'States plainly,' and each sentence carries meaningful information. It is slightly wordy but not padded, and the structure logically moves from purpose to constraints to return content.

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 tool, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the tool's purpose, what it clarifies about the enquiry process, key caveats, and exactly what it returns, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding 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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds contextual meaning about what the tool communicates, which is useful even though no parameter documentation is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on ADR Courses.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from the sibling submit_enquiry tool by making clear it describes rather than performs the enquiry.

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 an explicit usage cue, signaling that this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It establishes context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions beyond the implied contrast with submit_enquiry.

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