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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about what the enquiry does and does not entail: 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free.' It also discloses what the tool returns: recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that this tool itself has no side effects, but 'States plainly' implies it is informational.

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 the critical directive 'Read first.' Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's subject, the second explains outcomes and return content. There is no redundant filler.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what the enquiry involves, what caveats exist, and what information will be returned. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation or expectation-setting.

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 parameter-semantics baseline is 4. The description adds useful context about the return content even though no parameters need explanation. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps 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 the tool's purpose: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on DSEAR Assessment Cost' and explains the enquiry process with human providers. It distinguishes itself from the action-oriented submit_enquiry by being the 'Read first' explanatory tool. The title also reinforces that this describes an enquiry rather than performing a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 description explicitly opens with 'Read first,' signaling this should be used before taking action with submit_enquiry. It makes the context clear: use this to understand what happens when an enquiry is submitted. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the guidance to read first before proceeding is strong enough.

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