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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does describe the shape of the returned data (six per-field attributes including help text and allowed options). It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or side-effect-free, but the enumeration of static field metadata strongly implies an inspection-only call.

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, no filler. The what-it-returns clause is front-loaded and the downstream usage note follows it, so the agent gets purpose before procedure.

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 explain the return value itself; it does so field-by-field and notes that options are only present 'where there are any.' Combined with the submit_enquiry keying instruction, an agent has everything needed to call this and use the result.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly describes this as a no-argument lookup and instead explains how the returned keys are consumed downstream.

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?

Names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what it returns (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options) for a named enquiry. It is clearly distinguishable from dataset_* siblings and from 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the next step: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which names the sibling and the required keying convention. It lacks an explicit statement of when not to call it, but for a zero-arg discovery tool the workflow guidance is clear.

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