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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states what the tool returns ('who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms') and communicates key expectations like 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'no quote is guaranteed'. It does not describe the output format or explicitly confirm this describe call is side-effect-free, but for a read-first description tool the coverage is adequate.

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 three short, purposeful sentences. 'Read first' is front-loaded, the second sentence explains the core behavior, and the third lists what is returned. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete: it tells an agent why to call it, what it explains about submit_enquiry, and what content it returns. Nothing critical is missing for selecting and invoking this simple describe 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?

This tool has zero parameters and the schema reflects that completely. Since there is nothing to document, the baseline of 4 applies and no additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 positions this tool as the explainer: 'Read first' and 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does'. It distinguishes the describe step from the actual submit_enquiry action and names the scope ('on Invoice Factoring Cost'). It does not explicitly contrast with all sibling tools, but the separation from submit_enquiry is clear enough.

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 'Read first' provides explicit temporal guidance: use this before invoking submit_enquiry. The description also clarifies what the enquiry will not do (no purchase, no guarantee, free), which helps an agent decide whether the enquiry flow is appropriate. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or routing among siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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