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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it states the enquiry is free, nothing is bought/ordered/paid, and no quote is guaranteed. It also previews the returned content (recipient info, consent wording, confirmation process), though it does not address permissions or access requirements.

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?

It is front-loaded with 'Read first' and reasonably brief, but the non-transactional point is repeated three ways ('Nothing is bought, ordered or paid; no quote is guaranteed; it is free'), which adds 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, no-output-schema tool, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what information it surfaces. No annotations are needed for a read-only explanatory tool, and the description covers the essential behavioral caveats.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter details and focuses on what the tool returns instead.

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 identifies this as an explanatory/read-first tool that describes what submit_enquiry does and returns details on recipients, consent wording, and confirmation. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by being the informational counterpart, though it does not explicitly differentiate from enquiry_fields.

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 explicit usage timing relative to submit_enquiry, and the contrast with purchase/quote clarifies what this tool is not for. It does not name enquiry_fields as an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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