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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid for, that no quote is guaranteed, and that it is free. The word 'states' also conveys that this is an informational/read-only tool rather than one that submits anything.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and the core purpose, then adds expectation-setting and return details. It is slightly redundant with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote' vs 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'), but each sentence still contributes useful context.

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, the description covers what the tool does, what the user should expect, and what information it returns. It could more explicitly mention alternatives like enquiry_fields or checker tools, but the 'Read first' instruction and submit_enquiry reference make the intended context sufficiently clear.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and it appropriately focuses on what the tool returns instead.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and spells out the returned content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation method). This clearly separates it from the sibling submit_enquiry, which actually performs the submission.

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?

'Read first' explicitly positions this as the upfront explanatory tool before an enquiry is submitted. It doesn't exhaustively list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the direct reference to submit_enquiry and the 'Read first' instruction provide clear context for when to call it.

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