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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns who receives the details, consent wording, and confirmation method, and it clarifies that nothing is bought/ordered/paid and no quote is guaranteed. It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but 'Read first' implies safety. The description is transparent about both its own behavior and submit_enquiry's behavior.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the critical guidance ('Read first') and then delivers a concise, informative explanation of what the tool returns and what submit_enquiry does not do. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema) and its role as a meta-description, the description covers the essential points: what it returns, what it clarifies, and the context (Metal Fabrication Quotes). It lacks an explicit return format, but that is not critical for a descriptive tool and would be redundant given the stated content.

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 there is nothing to describe. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies when no parameters exist. The description does not need to add parameter details since the schema is trivially complete.

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 explicitly states what the tool does: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Metal Fabrication Quotes. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by being the 'Read first' documentation tool, while submit_enquiry is the action and enquiry_fields likely provides fields. The verb 'states' and resource 'what submit_enquiry does' are specific.

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' gives explicit guidance to call this tool before using submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what submit_enquiry does not do (no purchase, no guaranteed quote, free), which helps the agent decide when to use the alternative. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to enquiry_fields.

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