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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral burden. It is transparent about the returned content, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or whether any side effects occur.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the scope with 'Every field...' and then lists all relevant metadata attributes plus a downstream usage hint. There is no repetition of schema content and no 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?

Given the zero-parameter input and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to consume it. It does not specify the exact response container, but the listed attributes and keyed-answers note are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is high and little parameter detail is needed. The description adds useful linking semantics by explaining that answers should be keyed by field key, connecting this tool's output to submit_enquiry's expected input.

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 is clear about what the tool exposes: every field of the enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', so it falls slightly short of the strongest level of purpose clarity.

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 clear usage context: retrieve the field metadata and pass answers to submit_enquiry using the field keys. It does not explicitly contrast this with enquiry_describe or other sibling tools, so it lacks full when-not-to-use guidance.

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