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

With no annotations provided, the description is the only source of behavioral information. It implies a read-only introspection query and describes the field-level information the agent will receive. It doesn't disclose possible edge cases such as response shape, absence of data, authentication expectations, or side-effect-free guarantees, though the metadata nature of the tool makes those less critical.

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 short sentences contain the necessary information: what the tool returns and how that output connects to submit_enquiry. The description is front-loaded and contains 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 explains the returned field vocabulary and gives a downstream usage pattern. It stops short of specifying the exact response structure, but it is likely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret its results.

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 input schema already covers 100% of the argument surface, so no parameter-level explanation is required. The phrase 'Every field' further signals that the call is unfiltered and returns the complete set of enquiry fields, satisfying the baseline for a no-argument 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource ('Sell My Business Quotes enquiry') and states the exact content of the tool: every field with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It makes a 4 rather than a 5 because it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as enquiry_describe or dataset_columns; only its resource-specific naming makes the distinction clear.

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 second sentence routes usage toward submit_enquiry ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), giving the agent a concrete downstream step. It does not, however, say when to prefer this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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