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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the exact return payload fields, which compensates for the absent output schema, but it says nothing about whether this is a public/unauthenticated read, caching, or any rate/side-effect characteristics.

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. The return-shape enumeration comes first and the downstream usage note is front-loaded into the second sentence.

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, the description does the work of describing the return object, and it links the result to the consuming tool. It is nearly complete; only the read/authorization context and the distinction from enquiry_describe are missing.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds useful cross-tool semantics by explaining that returned field keys are the keys to use when answering submit_enquiry, which is information the empty schema cannot convey.

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 names the concrete resource — every field of the Bags That Pay enquiry — and enumerates what each field carries (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which is the main gap.

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?

"Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key" implies the intended workflow (call this before submit_enquiry to learn the schema), which is genuinely useful routing. However, no explicit when-to-use versus enquiry_describe is given, and no preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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