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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the shape of the returned data (the per-field attributes). It omits explicit statements that the call is read-only, side-effect free, or how options are populated, which would round out the profile.

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 tight sentences: the return contents are front-loaded and the actionable follow-up (key your answers by field key for submit_enquiry) comes second. Nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description needs to describe the payload, and it does list the field attributes returned. It stops short of confirming read-only semantics or explaining how the results are ordered, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 still adds useful framing by defining the 'field key' concept that downstream calls depend on, which 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 states a specific resource and enumerates the exact payload (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows it returns enquiry field metadata. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving some ambiguity about which enquiry-metadata tool to pick.

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?

It implies usage by instructing 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', which tells the agent this feeds the submission flow. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing against enquiry_describe, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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