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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the returned field attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options) but does not state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, nor does it mention authorization or output structure.

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 resource description and followed by actionable downstream guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains what fields are returned and how to use them. It does not cover the relationship to enquiry_describe or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, leaving 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 input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant guidance about how the returned field keys should be used with submit_enquiry, but there are no 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 the resource: every field of the Rechner HQ enquiry, and enumerates the returned attributes. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling enquiry_describe tool, 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?

It provides clear downstream usage: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent exactly how the output ties into the next step. It does not state when to use this versus enquiry_describe, so it lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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