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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states what the tool exposes and that the allowed options are included only 'where there are any'. The no-parameter, read-only nature is implied, though not explicitly stated as 'returns no side effects'.

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 compact, information-dense, and front-loads the main content before the usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple no-parameter lookup tool, the description conveys the substantive content and how the results connect to submit_enquiry. The only minor gap is that it does not specify the exact return container (array versus object), but the enumerated field details largely cover what an agent needs.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation gap. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to add about parameter usage.

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 (every field of the Florida HVAC Replacement Cost enquiry) and the specific attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not directly contrast with enquiry_describe, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 gives clear context for how to use the output: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implicitly differentiates it from submit_enquiry. However, it does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_fields versus enquiry_describe, leaving some inference required.

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