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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns recipients, consent wording, and the confirmation mechanism. It doesn't mention caching, auth, or side effects, but for a read-only describe tool this is substantial context.

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?

"Read first" is front-loaded as an actionable directive, followed by compact clauses that each add distinct information (what happens, what doesn't happen, what is returned). Slightly dense in a single sentence but no 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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the return content (who receives details, consent wording, how the person confirms), which compensates for the absent output schema. Adequately complete, though it could be clearer that this tool itself returns no side effects beyond the explanation.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline no parameter explanation is required. The description correctly adds none and focuses on output content instead.

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: explaining what submit_enquiry does on the Lead generation flow and what an enquiry entails (human providers, no purchase, no guaranteed quote). It is clearly an informational/descriptive tool, distinct from enquiry_fields and submit_enquiry, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against those siblings.

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." gives a clear ordering cue implying this should be consulted before submitting an enquiry, which is useful. However, it never names the alternatives (enquiry_fields, submit_enquiry) or states when this tool is preferable to opening those directly, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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