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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it states the tool 'returns who receives the details, the consent wording, and how the person confirms' and clarifies what it does not do ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed'). It reveals the output content and the non-transactional nature of the enquiry. It does not explicitly declare the tool itself side-effect-free, but the 'states/returns' framing makes its read-only nature reasonably evident.

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, front-loaded with the imperative 'Read first,' and each clause adds a distinct point: target tool, non-purchase behavior, and return content. There is minor redundancy with the title, but no wasted sentences.

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?

Given zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough orientation: what the tool is for, its target, and its returns. It mentions the consent wording and confirmation flow, which are actionable for deciding whether to call submit_enquiry. It could name alternative/successor tools, but that is not essential for calling this simple describe tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the schema itself is already complete; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description reinforces the informational nature but has no parameter details to add.

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 uses a concrete verb ('states plainly') and names the subject ('what submit_enquiry does on Temperature Log'), so an agent understands this is an informational tool about a specific sibling. The title also clarifies the outcome is 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' distinguishing it from action-oriented tools like submit_enquiry. This clearly separates it from the sibling tools.

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' explicitly tells an agent to consult this tool before acting, and the body explains it is the plain-language guide to submit_enquiry's behavior. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusions, so it stops one step short of full routing guidance.

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