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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output contents thoroughly (six field properties and conditional allowed options) and implicitly signals a read-only operation by describing a listing rather than a mutation. It could explicitly say 'this does not submit the enquiry', but the submit_enquiry reference makes that clear enough.

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 filler. The first sentence front-loads the scope and returns the content list; the second gives the practical usage. It avoids repeating the title or restating 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, zero-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how to use the result. It could specify the exact return shape (e.g., array of objects), but the property list and submit pointer are sufficient for an agent to call and use it correctly.

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, so the schema provides no parameter documentation; the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds semantic value by explaining what the returned data represents and how to map it to submit_enquiry parameters, going beyond the empty schema.

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 clear scope: 'Every field of the Freight Forwarder Finder enquiry' followed by the exact properties returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from the compare_* siblings and from submit_enquiry by clarifying it only exposes the field structure and that answers should go to 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?

It gives a concrete usage pointer: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', telling the agent when to use this tool (before submitting). It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe or the compare_* tools, so choosing among those siblings is left to inference rather than stated.

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