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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it is obviously a read-only lookup and it discloses the exact shape of what comes back. It does not mention whether the field set is stable, cached, or requires any authorization, which are minor gaps for a zero-parameter read.

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, both earning their place: the first defines the payload, the second routes the result into the next call. The field list is dense but front-loaded and free of filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must document the return value, and it does so field by field while tying the result to submit_enquiry. The remaining gap is the relationship to the enquiry_describe sibling, which is left unaddressed.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly spends its words on the return payload instead, and the 'keyed by field key' note is the only semantic detail needed to consume the output.

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 names a specific resource — every field of the Historia Pojazdu VIN enquiry — and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options). That is far more than a restatement of the title. It falls short of a 5 only because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which an agent must choose between.

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 context: answers obtained elsewhere are passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells the agent where this tool sits in the workflow. It does not state when this tool should be called instead of enquiry_describe, so there is no explicit exclusion.

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