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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the practical trait that matters most: the returned keys are the identifiers expected by submit_enquiry. However, it says nothing about whether this is read-only, whether it triggers any side effects, or caching/call-frequency behavior.

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, front-loaded with the primary payload description and followed by the one integration detail that matters. No filler, though the field enumeration is dense enough that it reads as a list-in-prose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does so adequately by listing key, label, type, requiredness, help text and options. It also names the specific enquiry it applies to, but leaves the relationship to enquiry_describe unstated.

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, which sets the baseline at 4. The description still adds value by spelling out the shape of each returned field entry rather than leaving the agent to guess.

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 resource precisely (every field of the Procedure Cost Checker enquiry) and enumerates what each field entry contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling enquiry_describe, which is the only gap.

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 closing sentence establishes a workflow: use this to discover field keys, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. That implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus enquiry_describe or any condition/exclusion criteria.

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