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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that nothing is bought/ordered/paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the operation is free, and what the return covers (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow). It never explicitly states the tool has no side effects, but 'Read first' and the informational framing make the read-only nature 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?

"Read first" is front-loaded as the key instruction and each subsequent sentence carries distinct content (what the subject is, the non-purchase guarantees, the return contents). It is slightly wordy and mixes tool behavior with content summary, but no sentence is pure 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 zero-parameter, no-annotation tool with no output schema, the description covers both purpose and return content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation), which is what an agent needs. The absence of explicit read-only language is a minor gap, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details.

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 identifies the tool as a read-only explainer ("Read first. States plainly what submit_enquiry does") and distinguishes it from the submit_enquiry sibling by describing it as documentation rather than the action itself. The verb is somewhat diffuse — 'states' and 'returns' — and it spends more words describing the subject matter than the tool's own operation, but an agent can tell what it is.

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 establishes ordering relative to submit_enquiry, which is named in the text, giving the agent a clear trigger for calling this before the submission tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or mention of enquiry_fields as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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