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 the service is free, and it previews the returned content (recipient, consent wording, confirmation method). It does not explicitly label itself read-only, but 'Read first' plus the negative framing effectively conveys that this call has no side effects.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'Read first' directive, and each sentence adds distinct information (what it describes, what it is not, what it returns). Slightly awkward wording around 'what submit_enquiry does on SEO for dealerships' costs it a point but there is no 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey what comes back, and it does name the returned elements: who receives the details, the consent wording, and the confirmation method. For a zero-parameter informational tool this is nearly complete, missing only a note on the format/length of the returned prose.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly describes a no-input, content-returning call without inventing parameters.

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 companion that returns prose about the enquiry flow rather than performing an action: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms.' It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by framing that tool in the third person, though the sibling enquiry_fields is never mentioned and the phrasing requires careful reading to see that the action belongs to submit_enquiry, not this 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?

'Read first' gives an explicit ordering directive and the negative framing ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote') tells the agent this is a non-committal informational call. However, it never states when this tool should be skipped in favor of enquiry_fields or submit_enquiry, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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