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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the complete shape of what is returned, including conditional content ('the allowed options where there are any'), and ties the result to a downstream write via submit_enquiry. It never explicitly states this is a read-only, no-side-effect lookup, which is the main remaining gap.

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, zero filler. The colon-list enumerates the returned properties compactly and the usage hint is the final sentence, so the payload is front-loaded.

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 parameterless lookup with no output schema, the description effectively substitutes for the missing return documentation by naming every property of a field. The only omission is the concrete return container (a list vs. a keyed map), so the agent must infer structure.

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, so per the baseline there is nothing for the description to document. The only reference to an argument is the usage hint about keying answers by field key when calling submit_enquiry, which is helpful but belongs to a different tool.

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?

Names a specific resource (the Roofing Quotes UK enquiry fields) and enumerates exactly what each field carries (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so the agent knows this is a schema/introspection tool rather than a data-search tool. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from the similarly named sibling enquiry_describe, which leaves a small ambiguity.

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?

Gives a concrete downstream workflow: fetch the fields here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. That is genuinely actionable 'when to use' context. It does not state exclusions or contrast against enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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