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 does well by stating that nothing is bought, ordered, paid for, or guaranteed, that it is free, and that it returns specific information such as consent wording and confirmation mechanics. It could go further by explicitly stating that the tool is read-only and has no side effects, but the content strongly implies that.

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-loads the most important usage signal, "Read first." It packs meaningful distinctions into two sentences without significant fluff. The first sentence is a bit dense, but it still earns its place by explaining what the tool is for.

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 covers the essential context: what it does, what it clarifies, and what information it returns. It could improve by explicitly situating itself among the sibling tools, especially since enquiry_fields and submit_enquiry are natural counterparts, but the core usage context is mostly complete.

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 and schema coverage is complete, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies here; the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than inputs.

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 identifies the tool as an explanatory resource: it "states plainly what submit_enquiry does" and says it returns details about recipients, consent, and confirmation. It also distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool enquiry_fields, and the first sentence is slightly ambiguous about whether it is describing the tool or the sibling's behavior.

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" signals that this tool should be used before submit_enquiry, and the description makes clear it is informational rather than transactional. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools enquiry_fields or submit_enquiry, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or direct routing guidance.

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