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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses the content (all fields with their metadata) and the relationship to submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or whether there are any limits—though the nature of a field listing makes side effects unlikely.

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, information-dense sentences. The first sentence enumerates the field attributes concisely; the second sentence connects the output to the submission workflow. Zero filler or repetition.

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?

The description fully explains what the tool returns and how the output should be used (keys for submit_enquiry). Since there is no output schema and no annotations, having the description spell out the field metadata is especially valuable. Minor omissions like error handling or pagination do not hurt this simple, parameterless tool.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. The description adds meaning by explaining what the response will contain (the field attributes) rather than just saying zero parameters, which gives the agent a sense of what data it will receive.

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 explicitly names the resource ('the Background Check Quotes enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is returned (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like submit_enquiry (which acts on the fields) and dataset_columns (which deals with datasets).

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 implicitly tells the agent how to use the output: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This gives clear context for the tool's role in the enquiry workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or compare it to other siblings (e.g., enquiry_describe).

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