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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool returns all field metadata and implies a read-only, non-submitting nature by instructing the caller to pass answers separately to submit_enquiry. It does not go into exhaustive detail about output format or edge cases, but for a simple metadata listing it is transparent enough.

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 tight sentences earn their place: the first delivers the full scope of the returned data, the second connects it directly to the next action (submit_enquiry). No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and the key usage hint is front-loaded enough.

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 simple zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the output contains and how the output should be used. It gives an agent everything necessary to call the tool and correctly feed results into submit_enquiry. No critical context about return shape or behavior 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 has zero parameters and the schema is trivially covered at 100%. The baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description adds a valuable usage note about keying answers by field key, which helps the agent understand how the returned metadata plugs into the sibling tool, even though it does not document any parameters.

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 verb (enumerate/describe) and a concrete resource: every field of the Nearshore Finder enquiry. It goes beyond a label by spelling out exactly what is included (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), and it distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining how the fields are meant to be used as keys for submission.

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 clear contextual guidance: an agent should retrieve these field definitions before calling submit_enquiry, and answers must be keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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