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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that the response includes recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives an agent a clear safety and expectations profile.

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, with the key directive 'Read first' placed up front and the explanatory details following in two sentences. It earns its length by conveying behavioral boundaries and return content without unnecessary repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately notes what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. Given the tool's simple, parameterless nature, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand what will happen.

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 there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing additional the description needs to document about inputs.

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 one that explains what submit_enquiry does, using a specific verb ('States plainly') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Battery Storage Cost'). It is not a tautology and is distinguishable from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields.

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 phrase 'Read first' provides a clear directive to consult this tool before proceeding, and the description explains what the user will learn (no purchase, no payment, no guaranteed quote, consent details). It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like enquiry_fields, but the intended context is strongly implied.

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