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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It says the tool 'States plainly' what another tool does and 'Also returns' the recipients, consent wording, and confirmation method, making clear it is an informational/return-value-producing tool. It stops short of explicitly stating 'this tool has no side effects,' but for a description-oriented zero-parameter tool the transparency is adequate.

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 short, front-loaded with 'Read first', and covers purpose, key content, and return information in three sentences. It is slightly repetitive with the title ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'), but it remains efficient and well structured.

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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives enough context to understand what the tool returns and why it should be called first. It names the related submit_enquiry process and key output aspects, though it does not navigate the sibling tool relationship with enquiry_fields.

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 properties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are no parameters to document. This is appropriate and needs no further compensation.

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 clearly states that the tool 'States plainly what submit_enquiry does' and describes the result as an explanation rather than an action. It names the relevant resource and context (TM44 Quote) and the title reinforces that this is informational, not a purchase or guaranteed quote. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from enquiry_fields, so it is not quite a 5.

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' is an explicit usage cue that positions this tool as the prerequisite before using submit_enquiry. It makes the context clear: use this to understand what happens when an enquiry is submitted. It does not mention alternatives such as enquiry_fields or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full guidance.

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