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. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the service is free, and that the tool returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how confirmation works. This is substantial and accurate transparency.

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 sentences with no wasted words. 'Read first' front-loads the key usage instruction, and each subsequent sentence adds essential behavioral or output information.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, clarifies what is not happening, and enumerates what the tool returns. No important details appear to be 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. The description adds useful context about the tool's purpose and outputs, which is appropriate even though there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 identifies the tool's job: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Legionella Assessment Cost, including that it initiates an enquiry with human providers rather than a purchase. It is clear about the resource it describes, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_fields.

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 phrase 'Read first' strongly signals that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry, and the description clarifies what the user can expect. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_fields or other alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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