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

With no annotations to carry the safety profile, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. This goes well beyond what the empty schema or title alone could convey.

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?

Three short sentences are front-loaded with the most important instruction ('Read first') and then state the core behavior, the non-purchase guarantee, and the returned information. Every clause earns its place without jargon or padding.

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 describe tool, the description is self-sufficient: it clarifies what this tool is for, what it is not (a purchase/quote), and what information it returns. An agent can decide to call it before submit_enquiry without any missing context.

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 and 100% coverage by definition, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for parameterless tools applies, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and return content instead of 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 names a specific verb ('states plainly'), the subject ('what submit_enquiry does on Contractor Pay Calculator'), and the scope (an enquiry with human providers who quote directly). It clearly separates this descriptive tool from the actual submit_enquiry sibling by framing itself as a read-first explanation rather than the action.

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' is an explicit placement cue telling the agent to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry, and the description makes it obvious this is the explanatory counterpart to that action. It doesn't explicitly rule out alternatives such as enquiry_fields or calculator_describe, but the context is clear enough for a zero-parameter description tool.

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