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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It also clarifies that the underlying enquiry involves no purchase, no guaranteed quote, and is free. It does not explicitly state that enquiry_describe itself is read-only and side-effect-free, but the non-mutating verb 'states' and the 'Read first' framing strongly imply 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 with the most important instruction ('Read first'). Every clause adds relevant information about the enquiry flow and the tool's output, with no filler or 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?

For a zero-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what behavioral context matters (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote), and what the returned information covers (recipients, consent wording, confirmation process).

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 and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies because the description does not need to compensate for any undocumented parameters.

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 function: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Business Grants Finder, including the fact that it starts an enquiry with human providers. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing rather than performing the action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the checker_* siblings.

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' provides clear context that this tool should be consulted before submitting an enquiry. It implies the agent should use this tool to understand the flow before calling submit_enquiry, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare it with sibling alternatives.

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