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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return payload and the keying convention needed for submit_enquiry, but says nothing about permissions, whether the field set varies per enquiry, or caching behavior. Adequate but thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by how to use it. Every clause adds information; the field enumeration is compact and the submit_enquiry hint 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?

With no output schema and no input parameters, the description does the necessary work by naming the exact fields returned and the options-where-present nuance. It could state whether the field list is static or enquiry-specific, which is the one remaining ambiguity.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by framing the tool purely as a reader of enquiry metadata.

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 ('Every field of the FlightDelayHQ enquiry') and enumerates the returned attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It doesn't name a verb like 'list' or 'describe', but the resource and payload are unambiguous and clearly distinct from submit_enquiry or dataset_columns.

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 gives concrete downstream guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which establishes the linkage to the sibling that consumes this output. It does not say when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, so it falls short of a full when/when-not statement.

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