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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the operation is free. It also previews the return content (recipients of details, consent wording, confirmation flow). A read-only nature is only implied by 'Read first' rather than stated outright, which keeps this from a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first.' The high-value constraints (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free) are packed efficiently. The middle sentence is somewhat long and slightly tangled in its clause ordering, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full load, and it does: it explains the semantic outcome of the enquiry flow and previews what the tool returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). This is sufficient for an agent to know what calling it yields and why it matters before invoking submit_enquiry.

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 the baseline of 4 applies and there is no parameter syntax for the description to compensate for. The description correctly adds no param detail because none 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 makes clear this is a documentation-style tool that 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' on the EPOS retail system, distinguishing it from the action tool submit_enquiry. The pronoun 'it' in 'it starts an enquiry' is momentarily ambiguous between this tool and submit_enquiry, but the framing sentence resolves it. It is a clear verb+resource definition without needing to open any schema.

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 an explicit ordering hint that this should be consulted before acting, and submit_enquiry is named as the related action. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this vs. enquiry_fields, and no when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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