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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does describe the returned record shape (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It never explicitly states the call is read-only or side-effect free, but the enumeration of returned metadata makes the read-only nature unambiguous.

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, both earned: the first defines the payload, the second states the downstream contract. Front-loaded with the resource and the return contents, with 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description covers the resource, the returned field set, and how to use it. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds relevant meaning by explaining that the returned keys are the exact keys expected by submit_enquiry, tying the output to a parameter contract elsewhere.

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 a specific resource (the Med Spa Cost Checker enquiry) and enumerates exactly what it returns: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. It clearly identifies this as the field-metadata source and links it to submit_enquiry, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 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?

It gives concrete downstream usage — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which tells the agent both why to call this and how to consume the result. It does not, however, state when to prefer it over enquiry_describe or any exclusions.

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