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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden and largely does: it is plainly a read operation, and it discloses the shape of the returned data (field keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, allowed options) in the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or failing behavior, but for a zero-parameter metadata read that is a minor omission.

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, both front-loaded: the first defines the payload, the second defines the follow-up action. No filler or restated title text.

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?

A zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema — the description compensates by enumerating the returned attributes and pointing to the consuming tool, which is everything an agent needs to call and use it correctly.

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 no parameter documentation is required and the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds nothing spurious about inputs and instead redirects input semantics to 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?

States a concrete verb+resource: it enumerates 'Every field of the DamageRestore HQ enquiry' and previews the returned attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). Clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving the agent to infer the split between the two.

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' gives an explicit downstream workflow and names the sibling tool to use next. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a contrast with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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