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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose key behavioral facts: nothing is bought, ordered, or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free; and it returns who receives details, the consent wording, and confirmation method. It does not explicitly state that enquiry_describe itself is read-only or side-effect free, but the descriptive framing implies it.

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 every sentence adds useful content about the enquiry's behavior or return value. It is slightly redundant with the title's mention of 'not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote,' but overall it is compact and well-ordered.

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 with no output schema, the description is quite complete: it states what the related submit_enquiry does, what it does not do, and what this tool returns. It could be more precise about the exact return format, but that is a minor gap for a descriptive 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 tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed because 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 identifies a specific verb and resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does on Which EV Charger,' and clarifies the expected outcome (an enquiry, not a purchase or guaranteed quote). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like submit_enquiry or enquiry_fields, so it falls short of a 5, but the purpose is clear and non-tautological.

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 directive to use this tool before proceeding with submit_enquiry, and the description explains what to expect from that submission. It gives clear context but does not spell out when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it lacks the full exclusionary guidance needed for a 5.

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