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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates that the tool provides field metadata and that answers belong with submit_enquiry, which implies a read-only lookup. It does not explicitly state that nothing is submitted or modified, nor does it mention any authentication or rate considerations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates the complete field content, and the second gives actionable guidance on how to use the results with submit_enquiry. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return contents and how to consume them, satisfying the key burden. It could be slightly more explicit about the tool's read-only nature and its relationship to enquiry_describe, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 accepts zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately avoids inventing unnecessary parameter details.

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—the HVAC Software Picker enquiry fields—and enumerates exactly what is included: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It is distinguishable from submit_enquiry and the compare_* siblings, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'Returns' or 'Lists'.

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 provides downstream guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying that this tool supplies the form schema. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool instead of enquiry_describe or the compare_* tools, or state any exclusions.

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