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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the full set of returned information and gives downstream usage guidance. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but a zero-parameter field-listing tool is inherently non-mutating and the description is otherwise transparent.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence followed by one actionable cross-reference. Every part earns its place, and the most important content is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns and why it matters for submitting an enquiry. It could be more explicit about the exact response shape or how it differs from enquiry_describe, but these are not critical gaps.

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?

With zero parameters, the description is not required to explain parameter behavior. It adds useful context by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use in submit_enquiry, which helps the agent make the right connection.

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 (the Data Room Picker enquiry) and enumerates exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'returns' and does not directly distinguish from sibling enquiry_describe, but the intent is 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 description tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this tool is the source of field keys for submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling tools, such as enquiry_describe.

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