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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. It also discloses what the returned content includes, such as who receives the details and the consent wording. It stops short of explicitly saying the tool itself performs no mutations, but the explanatory framing makes this reasonably clear.

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 most important guidance, 'Read first.' Every sentence adds value: what the enquiry is, what it is not, and what the returned description contains. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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-parameter describe tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand what it returns and why it matters. It names the core product behavior, the key exclusions (no purchase, no guarantee), and the specific return elements, so an agent can correctly choose and invoke the tool.

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 and the schema is empty with full coverage, so parameter-level documentation is unnecessary. The description appropriately focuses on behavior and return content rather than parameters, leaving no semantic gap.

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 states that enquiry_describe explains what submit_enquiry does on Party Wall Quotes, including that it starts an enquiry with human providers. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the 'read first' explanatory tool, though it does not explicitly address how it differs from enquiry_fields.

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 directive 'Read first' clearly signals that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry, and the description frames it as the plain-language explanation of that sibling tool. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it does not mention exclusions or alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from the other siblings.

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