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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. This is unusually transparent for a description.

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 appropriately short, opens with the most important instruction ('Read first'), and each sentence adds a distinct fact: what the tool does, what it does not do, and what it returns. No filler or redundancy.

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-argument, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete: it explains why to use it, what consequences to expect, and what return information it provides. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. There is no parameter detail to add, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 names a specific verb ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does') and a specific resource ('on Land Drainage Contractors'), and clearly distinguishes this informational tool from the sibling action submit_enquiry and helper enquiry_fields. The title reinforces the outcome without confusing the tool with the action 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 'Read first' is a direct usage signal telling the agent to consult this tool before taking the submit_enquiry action. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes when-to-use clear enough.

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