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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, that it is free, and it discloses what the response contains (recipient details, consent wording, confirmation flow). This goes well beyond a bare restatement of purpose.

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 two-sentence structure is front-loaded with "Read first," then pivots to what submit_enquiry does and what is returned. It is dense but every clause earns its place; 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema describe tool with no annotations, the description adequately covers behavior and return content (who receives details, consent wording, confirmation). It stops short of describing whether the content is static or dynamically derived, but the agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 4. No parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 names a specific subject – it explains what submit_enquiry does on SEO for personal injury lawyers – and contrasts it with the sibling submit_enquiry by framing this tool as the descriptive/read-first companion. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from enquiry_fields, but the verb-resource pairing is clear enough to select correctly.

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 a clear invocation cue relative to submit_enquiry, but no alternatives are named and no when-not conditions are stated. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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