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

With no annotations available, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure and does so well. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and what information the tool returns, including recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method.

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 'Read first' directive, then immediately states the core purpose. Every sentence adds relevant information: what the tool explains, what it does not involve, and what it returns.

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 explainer tool, the description is largely complete: it tells the agent what the tool explains and what output content to expect. It does not enumerate every possible output detail, but the described scope is sufficient for correct invocation and 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 there are no parameter semantics to elaborate. The schema fully covers this case, and the description appropriately focuses on the tool's behavior rather than input details.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: to plainly explain what submit_enquiry does. It adds crucial distinctions ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote') and clearly differentiates itself from the sibling submit_enquiry tool by being a descriptive/explainer tool rather than the action itself.

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 imperative 'Read first' signals that this tool should be used before engaging with submit_enquiry. It gives clear context about when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly rule out sibling tools or phrase when-not-to-use conditions.

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