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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It accurately discloses the data content returned, including the presence of allowed options, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe error/response behavior. For a zero-parameter metadata endpoint the read-only nature is implied, but not explicit.

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 tight sentences: the first enumerates exactly what the tool returns, and the second connects the output to a downstream workflow. No filler, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the empty input schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the returned content and its use with submit_enquiry. It does not specify the exact output structure (object vs array) or explicitly state read-only behavior, but the core information needed to call and integrate the tool is present.

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 no parameters, so the schema already fully documents the input; the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful cross-reference value by explaining that the returned field keys are used to key answers for submit_enquiry, but this is not parameter semantics per se.

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 specifies the tool's purpose: it returns every field of the Software Pricing Index enquiry with its key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This differentiates it from siblings like submit_enquiry and compare_* by focusing on field metadata rather than submission or comparison.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: retrieve field keys via this tool, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent when the tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly rule out alternatives or mention when not to use it.

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