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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, no quote is guaranteed, and the tool is free. It also says what the tool returns (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation), covering both safety and output behavior.

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 uses short, direct sentences. It is slightly repetitive with "Nothing is bought, ordered or paid" and "no quote is guaranteed", but each clause adds useful clarity.

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 does a good job explaining the tool's purpose, safety profile, and return contents. It could go further by relating itself to enquiry_fields, but it is largely complete for a simple descriptive 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, and the empty schema is self-explanatory.

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 it explains what submit_enquiry does, with a specific verb (states plainly) and resource (the enquiry process). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the read-first description, but does not mention the other sibling 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" gives a clear ordering instruction, implying this tool should be used before submit_enquiry. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternative breakdown.

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