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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that the process is free, and it describes the returned content: recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that enquiry_describe itself is side-effect-free, but 'states' and 'returns' strongly imply a read-only explanation tool.

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 'Read first,' and each sentence contributes useful information about the enquiry flow and return content. Some redundancy exists with the title's 'not a purchase' wording, but the description itself is tight and readable.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, key expectations, and the sequence cue 'Read first.' It would be more complete with explicit mention of alternative tools such as enquiry_fields, but the core behavior is adequately described.

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 100% schema coverage, so the schema already fully handles parameter documentation. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds no conflicting or missing parameter information.

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 makes clear this is an informational tool: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns explanatory content. It distinguishes itself from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and names the related submit_enquiry flow, though it does not sharply define itself against the sibling enquiry_fields tool.

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' implies the tool should be used before acting or before submit_enquiry, giving some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the sibling enquiry_fields is not mentioned, so an agent gets only an implicit routing signal.

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