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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that this tool returns explanatory content, clarifies that no purchase or payment occurs, and lists what information is returned, such as recipient details, consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly claim to be side-effect-free, but the informational tone makes the behavior 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the most important instruction, 'Read first.' Every sentence adds distinct value: one frames the tool as a prerequisite, and the other explains both what submit_enquiry does and what this tool returns. There is no redundancy or 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-output-schema informational tool, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool is for, what subject matter it covers, and what the returned information will include, so an agent can select and call it appropriately without needing extra context.

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 the schema coverage is effectively complete at 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden for the description to carry. 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 states a specific purpose: it describes what submit_enquiry does on the Right to Work Wizard, covering the enquiry flow, the fact that nothing is purchased or paid, and the content of what is returned. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling tool 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?

The opening 'Read first' tells the agent to consult this tool before acting, and the description frames it as an explanatory companion to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough in context.

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