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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free, which addresses the main side-effect concern. It also discloses what the tool returns: who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms. It stops short of explicitly saying 'this call has no side effects,' but the informational nature is strongly conveyed.

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 the important 'Read first' directive. Each sentence contributes: purpose, safety/expectation setting, and return contents. A small amount of ambiguity comes from referring heavily to submit_enquiry, but the text remains appropriately sized.

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 and no annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and the context in which it should be read. It covers the user-relevant expectations, the recipient information, and confirmation flow. It could be slightly more explicit that this tool does not itself submit anything, but the overall context is complete enough.

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 input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed because there are no parameters to document.

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 indicates the tool is a pre-submission explanation: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and clarifies the outcome is an enquiry, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing that tool rather than performing it, though the phrasing could more explicitly state that enquiry_describe itself returns informational text.

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' gives a clear contextual cue that this tool should be used before acting on submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use it, but the intended placement before submission is evident and sufficient for a zero-parameter informational tool.

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