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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly conveys that the tool is informational, emphasizes that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, and states what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation mechanism. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter describe tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the key 'Read first.' instruction, followed by the core purpose and return-value summary. It is slightly redundant with the title's 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' phrasing, but every sentence otherwise earns its place.

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 simple zero-parameter informational tool, the description is largely complete: it explains what the tool communicates, the non-commercial nature, and the returned information categories. It does not specify the exact output structure, but given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 schema already fully covers the input surface and the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which is acceptable because there are no parameters to document.

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 clearly states that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Demolition Quotes, using a specific verb and a well-scoped subject. It distinguishes itself from actually submitting an enquiry and from sibling tools by framing itself as the 'Read first' explanation resource.

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 instruction 'Read first.' explicitly tells the agent to consult this tool before taking action, which is clear usage guidance. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions relative to enquiry_fields, so it falls short of a 5.

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