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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently states that the tool 'states' and 'returns' information, and it clarifies that the underlying enquiry is free, not a purchase, and not a guaranteed quote. It does not explicitly state that calling enquiry_describe itself has no side effects, but the read-first framing and descriptive verbs make it unlikely to be misread as an action 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with 'Read first,' followed by clear statements of purpose and return content. The title is long but contributes meaningful context. No sentence is wasted, though the title and description together are slightly repetitive.

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, the description adequately explains what the tool does, what it returns, and key facts about the subject it describes. It could more explicitly say 'use this before submitting an enquiry,' but the 'Read first' cue largely covers that need.

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 the schema is empty, so there is no parameter ambiguity to resolve. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description sensibly adds no redundant parameter details.

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 uses the specific verb 'states plainly' and identifies the resource as 'what submit_enquiry does,' making it clear this is a documentation/explainer tool rather than an action tool. It is distinguishable from siblings like submit_enquiry and compare_options. However, the title 'What you get: an ENQUIRY with a human' is somewhat ambiguous and could be mistaken for the action itself, though the description immediately corrects this.

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 phrase 'Read first' provides a clear ordering cue, implying this should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so guidance beyond sequencing 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.