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 return payload shape and the linkage to submit_enquiry, which is useful behavioral context, but it never states that this is a read-only, zero-parameter operation or anything about auth, caching, or limits. For a trivial no-arg getter this is acceptable, but not rich.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and closed with the actionable usage pointer; nothing is padded. The colon-separated list of returned attributes is dense but every item earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and it does so explicitly. Combined with the cross-reference to submit_enquiry, an agent has what it needs; only minor gaps (read-only nature, error behavior) remain.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter semantics, and instead explains that the field keys it returns are the keys to use when calling submit_enquiry.

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 makes clear this returns the full field schema of the Crypto Exchange Compare HQ enquiry, enumerating exactly what comes back (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not use an explicit verb ('List'/'Get'), and it does not directly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, but the returned-content list makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 closing sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' names the sibling this tool feeds into and the condition that selects it, giving clear workflow context. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of enquiry_describe as an alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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