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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the call is free, plus what the response contains (recipients, consent wording, confirmation method). It implies read-only via 'Read first' but never states side-effect freedom explicitly.

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?

'Read first' is front-loaded as the operative instruction, followed by a compact summary of purpose and return contents. Slightly list-like phrasing in the final clause but no filler 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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema informational tool, the description explains what the caller gets and what the enquiry is not, which is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify its relationship to the enquiry_fields sibling.

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 baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter meaning the description could add or omit. The description correctly describes the returned content rather than any input, which is the right focus for a zero-param tool.

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+resource: it explains what submit_enquiry does and returns the supporting details (recipients, consent wording, confirmation flow). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by framing itself as the explanatory read ('not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote'). It never mentions the enquiry_fields sibling, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 a clear sequencing directive relative to submit_enquiry, telling the agent when this tool should be consulted. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or explicitly routing to enquiry_fields, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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