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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free, which prevents the agent from assuming this tool initiates a purchase. It also discloses what the return content covers: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation 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 compact and front-loaded with 'Read first.' Every sentence earns its place: scope, exclusions, cost, and return contents are all covered without redundancy or filler.

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 no-input, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, the non-transactional boundaries, and the nature of its return content. The only minor gap is not explicitly distinguishing this tool from enquiry_fields, though the purpose is still clear enough for an agent to invoke it safely.

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 properties, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, zero parameters gives a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately adds no misleading parameter-related claims.

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 purpose: it is a plain-language explanation of what submit_enquiry does, rather than the action itself. The phrase 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' gives a clear verb and resource, and it differentiates this tool from the sibling submit_enquiry by framing itself as descriptive, not transactional.

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 clear contextual guidance: an agent should consume this before acting on the enquiry workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the directive is strong enough to imply precedence over submit_enquiry.

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