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 it is free. It also explains what information is returned. It stops short of explicitly confirming that this describe tool itself has no side effects or auth requirements.

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 concise and front-loads the key instruction "Read first" before explaining purpose and behavior. Every sentence adds useful information, though the phrasing could be slightly tighter.

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?

Given no output schema and a meta-informational purpose, the description explains what it returns: who receives details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It is nearly complete, with the only notable gap being that it does not mention the enquiry_fields sibling.

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 document. The schema is empty and fully covered by the zero-parameter baseline, requiring no further clarification in the description.

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 that this tool explains what submit_enquiry does and returns details about the enquiry process, distinguishing it from the action-oriented sibling by framing it as informational ("Read first", "States plainly"). It does not differentiate from the other sibling, enquiry_fields, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implied usage: call this before submit_enquiry to understand what will happen. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_fields, leaving alternatives to inference.

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