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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose its return content: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It also clarifies the non-committal nature of the enquiry (nothing bought, no guaranteed quote, free). It does not explicitly state that this tool itself is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, leaving a small gap.

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?

'Read first.' is front-loaded as the key directive, then the function is stated in one dense but useful sentence. No filler, though the single long sentence packs several ideas together.

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 must describe return values, and it does: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. For a zero-parameter informational tool with no annotations, this is largely sufficient.

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 takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline of 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 specific function: it explains what submit_enquiry does (a human enquiry flow that is free, non-binding, no guaranteed quote) and returns the consent/recipient details. It is distinguishable from enquiry_fields and submit_enquiry by being the explanatory/read-first tool. It is slightly indirect in that it frames itself via a sibling's behavior rather than its own output, but the purpose is clear.

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' gives explicit sequencing guidance, positioning this tool ahead of submit_enquiry. It does not name enquiry_fields as an alternative or state explicit exclusions, but the context of use is clear.

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