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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it explicitly states the negatives ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free') and names the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation step). This is valuable behavioral context beyond a bare read tool, though it could be more explicit about the read-only nature.

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?

It is short and front-loads 'Read first', but the phrasing is padded and indirect ('States plainly what submit_enquiry does'). The title and description also repeat the same guarantees, reducing efficiency.

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 0-parameter informational tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: the content returned and the key negative guarantees. It leaves only minor gaps around ordering relative to siblings.

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 there is nothing for the description to document; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. The schema is empty and no parameter semantics are 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 states a specific content resource: it plainly lays out what submit_enquiry does for the Link building SEO service. An agent can distinguish this informational tool from the submit_enquiry action sibling, though the framing is somewhat circuitous ('states plainly what submit_enquiry does').

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' implies when to use it relative to the submit_enquiry action, but neither the sibling enquiry_fields nor submit_enquiry is named as an explicit alternative. The usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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