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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose what the tool returns: all enquiry fields plus their metadata. It implies a read-only schema listing, though it does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or describe the exact response shape.

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?

A single, dense sentence front-loads the full content of the response and ends with an actionable cross-tool instruction. Every phrase earns its place and there is no repetition of the schema.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool this is reasonably complete: it names the content, covers required/optional/options dimensions, and connects to its primary consuming sibling. A more explicit statement of the returned format would push it higher, but the core calling decision is fully supported.

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 input schema is empty, so parameter semantics are trivially satisfied. The description adds useful context by telling the agent that the field keys produced here should be used as keys for 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 names the specific resource (FBA Forwarders enquiry) and enumerates what is exposed: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It is clearly differentiated from submit_enquiry by the closing instruction, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb like 'get' or 'list.'

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 provides clear usage context: consult this tool to learn field keys and then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those keys. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or the compare_* siblings, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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