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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the process is free, and that the tool returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. It stops slightly short of explicitly saying that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects, though 'Read first' and the descriptive verb make that clear enough.

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 'Read first,' immediately telling the agent how to use it. Every sentence adds value: it states what the tool explains, clarifies the non-committal nature of the submission, and lists the returned information. No filler or unnecessary detail.

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 no-input, no-output-schema documentation tool, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool is for, what important caveats to surface, and exactly what information the call returns. Nothing needed to safely invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 the schema already covers the input completely, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 applies because with no parameters there is nothing the description needs to compensate for.

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 names a specific verb ('States') and resource ('what submit_enquiry does on Commercial Kitchen Cost'), making it clear this is an explanatory/read-first tool rather than the actual submission action. It distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by explicitly discussing that tool and from enquiry_fields by focusing on behavior rather than 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?

'Read first' clearly tells the agent to consume this description before invoking submit_enquiry, and it names the underlying action it explains. It does not explicitly enumerate when to use enquiry_fields versus this tool, but for a read-first explainer the usage 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.