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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (field metadata and allowed options), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only safety, auth requirements, caching, or whether the field set can change between calls.

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, and the payload contents are front-loaded before the submit_enquiry guidance. Slightly list-heavy but 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description enumerates the returned fields and their purpose, which adequately compensates for the missing structured metadata. Only minor gaps remain around auth and freshness.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The schema is empty and the description correctly implies none are needed.

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 names the specific resource (every field of the Medicare Plan Comparison enquiry) and enumerates the exact data returned: key, label, type, required, help text, options. That is far more specific than the vague title and clearly differentiates it from sibling retrieval tools like dataset_columns or enquiry_describe, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.

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 a downstream usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent why to call it and how the output feeds a sibling tool. However, it never states when to call this versus the adjacent enquiry_describe tool, nor any preconditions.

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