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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it well: it states nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; and it is free. It also discloses what the tool returns—recipients, consent wording, and confirmation flow—giving the agent a realistic model of the interaction.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: usage ('Read first'), purpose, non-transaction guarantees, and return contents. The description is short, front-loaded, and avoids repeating anything already available in structured form.

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 tells the agent what it will learn, what will and won't happen, and what the output covers. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit relationship to enquiry_fields, but that does not block correct invocation.

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 no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter information the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing missing.

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 action ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does') and a resource ('Executive Search Fees'), making clear this is the informational preamble to submit_enquiry. It distinguishes from submit_enquiry by being the explainer rather than the action, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields.

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' directly tells the agent to consult this before proceeding, and the description frames it as the explanation of submit_enquiry. It gives clear context for when to use it, but it does not explicitly say when not to use it or compare against enquiry_fields.

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