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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that this tool returns information about the enquiry flow, and clarifies that the enquiry itself involves no payment or guaranteed quote. However, it stops short of explicitly stating that this tool itself is side-effect-free and only returns an explanation.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and is reasonably concise. However, it repeats what the title already conveys ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' appears in both), adding some redundancy without earning all of its wording.

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 descriptive tool with no output schema, the description serves as both the tool's contract and its output summary. It lists what the returned text will cover: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation happens. This is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect.

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 and the input schema is empty, with full schema coverage. With no parameters to document, the description has no additional parameter semantics to provide, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 function: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Gearbox Reconditioning Cost. It is specific about the verb ('States plainly') and the resource (submit_enquiry). It does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 phrase 'Read first' is an explicit usage instruction, telling the agent to invoke this tool before submit_enquiry. It gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions explicitly.

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