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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what metadata is returned and how the result is consumed, but never states that the tool takes no arguments, is side-effect free, requires no auth, or returns a stable list — all reasonable inferences left to the agent.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the payload description is front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does, naming all six returned attributes plus the allowed-options case, and linking to submit_enquiry. It omits the exact response shape (list vs. object, ordering), the only remaining gap.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the description correctly avoids inventing any. Baseline for a no-param tool is 4.

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?

States a concrete resource — 'Every field of the Answering Service Quotes enquiry' — and enumerates the metadata returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows this is a field-introspection tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which an agent could reasonably confuse it with.

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?

Gives a clear contextual workflow: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which ties this tool to a specific downstream sibling and implies the discovery-then-submit pattern. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or dataset_columns, so no explicit exclusions.

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