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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent about the non-transactional nature (nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free) and about the return content. It does not explicitly say the tool itself is read-only, but the describe-oriented wording and absence of params imply this.

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 two sentences long, starts with the actionable 'Read first', and contains no filler. Each clause adds useful information about purpose, safeguards, and return content.

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 explanatory tool, the description is nearly complete: it says what the tool explains, the key caveats, and what the response contains. It lacks exact output formatting, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simple nature.

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 an empty schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no misleading parameter information.

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 states that the tool explains what submit_enquiry does on HACCP Software Compare and lists what the response covers, including recipients, consent wording, and confirmation. This makes the tool's purpose clear and distinguishes it from submit_enquiry itself, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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' is an explicit usage cue telling the agent to consult this tool before acting, and the description clarifies that it explains the submission flow rather than executing it. It gives clear context but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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