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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool describes the enquiry flow, that no purchase/payment/guarantee is involved, that the service is free, and that it returns 'who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.' This is rich, honest behavioral context for a description tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'Read first' directive and the core purpose. The description efficiently covers what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns, with no filler or repetition.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description provides everything needed: the workflow position ('Read first'), the behavioral boundaries (free, no purchase, no guaranteed quote), and the return contents (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation method). An agent can confidently decide to invoke this tool and 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 an empty schema, so schema description coverage is 100% and there is nothing to document. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description appropriately focuses on return content rather than nonexistent 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 verb and resource: it 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' on Industrial Fridge Service. The title reinforces this by clarifying the user gets 'an ENQUIRY with a human' and explicitly ruling out 'a purchase, not a guaranteed quote.' This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tools submit_enquiry and enquiry_fields, which are the action and fields counterparts.

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 description opens with the directive 'Read first,' which explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before interacting with the enquiry process. It also contrasts the tool's subject with what it is not ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), giving clear usage framing. Though it does not name sibling tools, the 'Read first' instruction and the naming of submit_enquiry make the intended sequencing unambiguous.

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