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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data is returned and notes that allowed options are included 'where there are any', which is a useful nuance. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor describe the response structure (e.g., array vs object) or any potential errors.

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 wasted content. The first sentence comprehensively lists what is returned; the second gives actionable next-step guidance. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, this description is quite complete. It explains the content of the response and how to use the returned keys. Minor gaps include the exact response format (JSON object vs array) and lack of an explicit read-only guarantee, but these are not critical for this simple tool.

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 baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter meanings since there are none. It does explain the field keys that will be used as answer keys for submit_enquiry, which is related but not about tool parameters.

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 ('every field of the Incorporate Where enquiry') and enumerates the type of data returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous. It indirectly distinguishes from siblings by linking to submit_enquiry, though it does not mention enquiry_describe.

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 second sentence gives explicit guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This clearly tells the agent how to use the output of this tool in conjunction with a sibling tool. It does not state when not to use it or compare with enquiry_describe, but the context is clear enough.

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