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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does describe the output contents in detail and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state that the tool takes no arguments, returns a list/object of fields, or has no side effects.

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 a single, tightly packed sentence that lists exactly what the tool returns and adds a practical integration hint. There is no redundant wording or 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 tool without an output schema, the description explains the return values well enough for an agent to understand what it will receive. It could be even more complete by stating the response format or distinguishing itself from enquiry_describe, but these are minor gaps.

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 the schema already covers this completely, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately focuses on output and integration rather than adding unnecessary parameter details.

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 states that the tool exposes every field of the enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This is specific about the resource and content, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' and does not differentiate itself from sibling tool 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 description provides no guidance on when to call this tool versus enquiry_describe or when not to use it. The hint to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key is useful after retrieval, but it does not explain the tool's selection context.

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