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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and what content it returns (recipient, consent wording, confirmation). For a zero-parameter informational tool this is a solid disclosure of the operation's consequences.

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?

Three tight sentences with the directive 'Read first' front-loaded, and the key reassurance (free, nothing bought) stated plainly. Minor redundancy exists between the title's parenthetical and the body's restatement of 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote', but the text is otherwise lean.

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-param, no-output-schema informational tool, the description is adequate: it explains the enquiry outcome and even summarizes return content (recipient, consent wording, confirmation). The only real gap is not clarifying its relationship to the enquiry_fields sibling.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning to add or omit. The description correctly focuses on what the call returns rather than inventing 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 states a specific purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Restaurant SEO agency, clarifying that an enquiry is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It distinguishes this informational tool from the submit action, though it never contrasts itself with the enquiry_fields sibling, so the boundary between the two 'read' tools is left somewhat implicit.

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' gives an explicit ordering cue that this should be consulted before submit_enquiry, which is useful. However, it offers no explicit when-not guidance and never names enquiry_fields as the alternative for inspecting field-level details, so the choice between the two read tools must be inferred.

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