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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that nothing is bought, ordered or paid, that no quote is guaranteed, and that the enquiry is free. It also previews the returned content (recipients, consent wording, confirmation). It does not cover possible failure or timing behavior, but for a read-only informational tool the disclosure 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?

The description is short and front-loads the actionable cue ('Read first') and the core content, with the returned items listed last. There is mild redundancy in 'Nothing is bought, ordered or paid,' but overall it stays lean and earns its length.

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 annotations, the description must supply both the return content and the behavioral context, and it does: it enumerates the returned items and states the key constraints of the enquiry flow. Given the tool is a zero-parameter informational resource, this is adequately complete.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing is misrepresented or missing in this dimension.

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 the specific verb+resource: it 'states plainly what submit_enquiry does' and returns who receives details, the consent wording, and the confirmation step. By naming the sibling submit_enquiry and clarifying it is the descriptive counterpart, it helps distinguish itself. It is slightly indirect in framing its own purpose through the sibling, but an agent can tell what it returns.

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' provides an ordering cue that this should be consulted before the enquiry flow, and naming submit_enquiry implies the sequencing relative to that sibling. However, there is no explicit when-not or explicit comparison against enquiry_fields, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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