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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and mostly meets it: it discloses that the enquiry is free, non-binding, and returns recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation behavior. The verbs 'read', 'states', and 'returns' imply a safe, read-only informational tool, though it could have stated that explicitly.

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 instruction ('Read first'). Every sentence earns its place: purpose, key clarifications, and return content are covered without redundancy.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description provides enough for an agent to understand when and why to call it. It could have explicitly stated the response format or that this tool itself has no side effects, but given the low complexity, those omissions are minor.

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 for the description to explain beyond what the empty schema already shows. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 this tool explains what submit_enquiry does on Payroll Software Compare, and the title reinforces the outcome: an enquiry with a human, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_enquiry, which performs the actual action.

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' is a direct instruction to consult this tool before using submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what submit_enquiry does not do (nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed). However, it does not explicitly address when to use the compare_* sibling tools instead.

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