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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool does. It discloses the exact categories of information returned and implies a read-only, metadata-retrieval behavior. It does not explicitly state 'no side effects', but nothing suggests mutation and the downstream instruction is consistent with a safe listing operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical usage note. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it explains what data will be in the response and how to use that data in the related workflow. An agent can confidently invoke this tool and interpret its result.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful meaning by explaining that the returned field keys are intended to be used as answer keys for submit_enquiry, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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 precisely what the tool provides: every field of the Answering Service Compare enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools that compare or submit, and it also explains the relationship to submit_enquiry.

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 concrete usage guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by the field keys returned here. It does not explicitly list when not to use this tool or compare it to enquiry_describe, but the intended workflow is clear.

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