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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it states nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, no quote is guaranteed, it is free, and it returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation works. This is far more transparent than a generic 'describes' statement.

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: 'Read first.' front-loads the key instruction, followed by purpose, constraints, and return information with no filler. Every sentence 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 zero-parameter documentation tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, what submit_enquiry does, what is not guaranteed, and what the tool returns. An agent has enough information to decide to call this first without opening any other tool.

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 carries no parameter semantics and the baseline of 4 applies. The description appropriately spends no space on parameters and focuses on behavior and return content.

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 uses a specific verb ('states plainly') and names the exact resource it documents ('what submit_enquiry does on Forensic Accountant Cost'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling submit_enquiry tool. The title reinforces the informational nature: 'What you get: an ENQUIRY with a human...'

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' explicitly instructs the agent to consult this tool before acting, establishing it as a prerequisite to using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly compare to enquiry_fields or state when not to use it, but the intended sequencing is clear.

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