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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool describes an enquiry flow, clarifies that nothing is bought, ordered, or paid, and states what information is returned: recipient of details, consent wording, and confirmation method. This gives a solid behavioral picture for a read-only informational tool, though it never explicitly says 'this tool itself makes no changes.'

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, each earning its place. The 'Read first' directive is front-loaded, the main purpose is stated plainly, and the boundary conditions (no purchase, no guarantee, free) plus return-content summary are packed into a compact description with no redundancy.

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 informational tool without an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to approach it. It also references the related submit_enquiry tool to orient the agent. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain.

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 specific verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on Void Clearance Quotes.' It clearly distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the explanatory/pre-flight tool rather than the action tool, and the title reinforces that it describes an enquiry experience, not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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' gives an explicit placement in the workflow, indicating this tool should be consulted before using submit_enquiry. It also clarifies what the user will not get (no purchase, no paid order, no guaranteed quote, free), which sets expectations. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_fields, but the 'Read first' instruction and naming of submit_enquiry provide adequate guidance.

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