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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output content (field attributes) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free. While the nature of returning field definitions strongly implies a safe getter, the description does not explicitly address behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose (what the tool returns), and the second sentence adds a practical usage hint. Every word 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only getter with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the exact data points returned and how the results relate to submit_enquiry. Minor omissions like pagination or response format are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema is empty (0 parameters), so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adds value by explaining that the returned field keys are used for submit_enquiry, which clarifies the relationship between tools but does not need to explain parameters since none exist.

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 states that the tool returns every field of the FindAgency HQ enquiry, enumerating the attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This is a specific, noun-phrase purpose that distinguishes it from siblings like submit_enquiry (which submits) and enquiry_describe (which likely describes the overall enquiry).

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 includes a direct usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This implies the tool is meant to be called before submitting, providing the field keys needed for submission. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or state when not to use it, but the usage context is clear.

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