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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns and implies a read-only metadata lookup whose output is used in submission. It does not discuss permissions or side effects, but for a zero-input metadata tool this is not a material omission.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first defines the output content, and the second connects the output to the submit_enquiry workflow, so every sentence earns its place.

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 no-argument metadata listing tool, this description is complete: it tells an agent exactly what will be returned and how to use that data in the related submission tool. There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the return contents sufficiently.

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 an empty input schema, so parameter-level explanation is not needed. The description adds relevant semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys become the keys for submit_enquiry answers.

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 clear purpose: it lists every field of the Accountancy Practice Valuation enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. The explicit mention of feeding answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key distinguishes it from the submission workflow.

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 description gives clear usage context: fetch the field keys here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry using those keys. It names the downstream sibling and the intended workflow, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe.

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