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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what data is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options), but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only lookup, whether authentication is required, or how the result is structured. Adequate but not deeply transparent.

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 purposeful sentences: the first enumerates exactly what the tool returns, and the second tells the agent how to use that result. No wasted words and the core content 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description adequately communicates the return content and the downstream use of the keys. It does not specify the exact structure for options/help text, but for a zero-parameter metadata lookup this is sufficient for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the only relevant guidance is the final sentence about using field keys with submit_enquiry.

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 KnownVehicle enquiry') and enumerates the returned metadata: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also names submit_enquiry as the downstream counterpart, which helps differentiate it from at least one sibling, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' makes the intended workflow explicit: retrieve the field definitions first, then submit answers using those keys. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or point to alternatives like enquiry_describe.

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