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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals what fields are returned but does not explicitly say the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no auth. The zero-parameter design makes major risks unlikely, so this is adequate but not enriched.

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?

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the resource ('Every field of the PRO Services Prices enquiry'), enumerates the field attributes, and closes with a usage pointer. Every phrase adds value and there is 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and how the result is meant to be used (keyed answer submission). It lacks an explicit statement of the response format, but for such a simple read-only listing this is a minor gap.

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 input schema has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that returned field keys are the same keys used to structure answers for submit_enquiry, which helps the agent connect the output to the next step even though there are no input parameters to document.

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 returns every field of the PRO Services Prices enquiry and enumerates what those fields contain (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch', and it does not distinguish the tool from the sibling 'enquiry_describe', so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies how the output should be used by saying 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', but it never directly states when to use this tool versus 'enquiry_describe' or 'submit_enquiry'. There is no explicit context about prerequisites or exclusion conditions, leaving the timing of use to inference.

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