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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description does not state whether this is a read-only operation, whether it has side effects, whether it requires authentication, or what errors might occur. It only describes the output content. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap; the agent is left to assume the operation is safe and non-mutating without explicit assurance.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Every field of the Freight Insurance Cost enquiry') and immediately follows with the relevant details (what each field contains and how to use the output). There is no filler or redundant wording, and it is appropriately structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), so the description does not need to explain return values or complex behavior. It clearly states what is returned (fields with attributes) and how to use that information (keyed answers for submit_enquiry). The only minor omission is an explicit statement that the tool is read-only, but given the simplicity, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke 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 0 parameters and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). According to the rubric, a tool with 0 parameters gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none, and it does not introduce any confusing parameter-related information. The score reflects that the description is adequate for a parameterless tool.

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 verb ('returns'), a specific resource ('every field of the Freight Insurance Cost enquiry'), and enumerates the content (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing submit_enquiry and implying it is the field-definition provider. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from the other tools.

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 an explicit usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent that the output of this tool is meant to feed into submit_enquiry, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like enquiry_describe, so it is not a full 5.

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