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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly says nothing is bought, ordered, or paid and that the process is free, which clarifies non-transactional behavior. It also describes what the tool returns: who receives details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This is sufficient for a no-parameter read-only informational tool, though it does not discuss auth or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with 'Read first' and delivers the core purpose early. It is slightly wordy with redundant emphasis on 'nothing is bought, ordered or paid' and 'free', but every sentence contributes to preventing misuse. It remains appropriately sized for a no-parameter tool.

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 tool with no output schema, the description gives enough detail about its informational role and return content. It names the related submit_enquiry flow and explains the key behavioral caveats. It could add a little more about when not to use it relative to comparison tools, but it is largely complete for its simple purpose.

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, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied; the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description confirms there is no input required by framing the tool as a 'read first' reference. No additional parameter explanation is needed.

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 precise purpose: it explains what submit_enquiry does on Snagging Software, distinguishing this informational tool from the action tool itself. It clearly defines scope by noting nothing is purchased, ordered, or paid, and that no quote is guaranteed. The 'Also returns...' clause specifies concrete output content, making the tool's function unmistakable.

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' directly tells an agent to use this tool before proceeding, which is clear when-to-use guidance. It contrasts with submit_enquiry by explaining that this tool does not create a purchase or guaranteed quote, helping avoid misuse. It does not name alternative sibling tools such as compare_criteria, but the context makes the primary usage scenario obvious.

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