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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the content returned, including field metadata and optional options, and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state that no mutation occurs or describe the response container. This is acceptable for a simple metadata tool but leaves some ambiguity.

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 compact, information-dense sentences. The first sentence enumerates the exact field attributes, and the second immediately connects the result to submit_enquiry. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the domain, specifies the field attributes, and tells the agent how to use the keys. It could mention the shape of the returned value, such as list versus map, but the absence of an output schema makes this a minor 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 has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter details for the description to add. The description appropriately focuses on return content and downstream usage, matching the zero-parameter baseline.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'every field of the Boat Value Calculator enquiry' and enumerates the returned attributes: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return' and does not distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 final sentence gives actionable guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' telling the agent why to call this tool and how downstream submission should be structured. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe.

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