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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it delivers: it states that the enquiry is free, that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that details go to human providers. It also describes return content. It does not explicitly state that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects, but nothing contradicts that and the attribution to submit_enquiry is unambiguous.

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?

Three sentences, appropriately sized, with the most important directive front-loaded ('Read first'). There is minor redundancy between the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote') and the description ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), but every sentence otherwise 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 0-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers what the tool does, what the underlying submission does not do, and what the tool returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation mechanism). Lacking an output schema, it appropriately describes return content; slightly more format detail would be the only possible addition.

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 is nothing for the description to document about arguments. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, a 4 is appropriate; the description correctly spends no space on parameters.

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 a specific purpose: 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does on Heat Network Check.' The tool's role as an explainer/read-first prerequisite is clear, and it is sharply distinguished from its sibling submit_enquiry by explicitly attributing the action to that sibling rather than itself.

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 opening directive 'Read first' gives explicit when-to-use guidance: consult this before acting (presumably before calling submit_enquiry). It does not name exclusions or compare explicitly against sibling alternatives like enquiry_fields or checker_start, but the sequencing cue is a clear and useful usage signal.

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