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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: the tool is informational, free, involves no purchase or order, and no quote is guaranteed. It also previews what it returns (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It stops short of explicitly stating read-only status or the response shape, but for a zero-parameter informational tool this is solid.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the directive "Read first" and then the substantive content. Slightly dense with clauses, but no sentence is filler and the key point (it's an enquiry, not a purchase) leads.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must itself convey what the caller gets, and it does: the explanation of submit_enquiry, the recipients, the consent wording, and the confirmation mechanism. Complete enough for an agent to know what to expect from this 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 takes zero parameters, so the schema has nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, matching the empty schema.

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 function: it returns a plain-language explanation of what submit_enquiry does, plus who receives details, the consent wording, and the confirmation step. It clearly distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by clarifying that nothing is bought or paid, but it never mentions the sibling enquiry_fields, so it does not fully triangulate its place among siblings.

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" gives an explicit ordering instruction that positions this tool ahead of submit_enquiry, which is useful routing guidance. It does not, however, state when to use enquiry_fields instead or any condition under which this tool should be skipped.

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