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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and outcomes.

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 the actionable 'Read first' directive, and each sentence adds distinct information: what the tool explains, what it does not do, and what it returns. The phrasing is direct and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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, no-annotation tool, the description is complete. It explains the tool's purpose, the domain context, the non-financial nature, the free aspect, and the specific return content. An agent has enough information to decide when to call this tool and what to expect from 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 baseline is 4 and the description does not need to explain parameter behavior. The description instead focuses on what the tool communicates, which is appropriate for a parameterless informational tool. No parameter semantics are missing.

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 states a clear, specific purpose: it is a read-first tool that explains what submit_enquiry does, framed as starting an enquiry with human providers. It distinguishes the tool from the actual action tool by emphasizing that nothing is purchased, ordered, or guaranteed. The title reinforces this with the 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' contrast.

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 phrase 'Read first' gives explicit guidance to consult this tool before proceeding, which is strong usage direction. It clarifies that this tool explains submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over enquiry_fields or when it can be skipped. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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