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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, and it does so by specifying exactly what the tool returns: per-field metadata including allowed options. It conveys that this is a read-only lookup without stating side effects, and for a no-parameter introspection tool this is adequate.

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 short, information-dense sentences. The first states the payload contents; the second gives actionable downstream guidance. No filler or repetition.

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, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the field metadata contents and how to pass answers to the submission tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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, which is fully captured by the empty input schema. The description does not need to explain parameters; it instead explains the output shape and how to use it with submit_enquiry, which is the more relevant semantic information.

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?

Clearly identifies the tool as returning the field schema of the Florida Solar Cost Calculator enquiry, enumerating key, label, type, requiredness, help text, and allowed options. It is unambiguously distinct from siblings like calculate, enquiry_describe, and submit_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?

Provides practical guidance for using the tool: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells an agent why to fetch these fields and how to use them downstream. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is clear.

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