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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it performs well: it explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also reveals what the output contains—who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method—which is important because there is no output schema.

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: 'Read first' immediately communicates the intended use, followed by a clear statement of purpose and boundary conditions. Every clause earns its place, 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, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, and what it guarantees (nothing). It does not describe exact output formatting, but that is unlikely to block correct invocation for an informational describe tool.

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, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation burden exists.

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 resource and action: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Current Annuity Rates, clearly identifying itself as the explanatory companion to submit_enquiry. It also distinguishes the tool from the actual submission by highlighting that nothing is purchased or guaranteed, so an agent can tell this is a describe tool rather than an action tool.

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 directive 'Read first' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before doing anything else, which is strong temporal guidance. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but for a describe tool the relevant alternative is clearly submit_enquiry, and the description makes the relationship plain.

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