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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does describe the returned field structure, which is valuable, but it never states that this is a side-effect-free read or whether the field set is static. Adequate but with a clear gap on behavioural guarantees.

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 front-loads the returned payload, the second gives the follow-on action. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries information.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must explain the return value, and it enumerates the seven returned attributes well enough for an agent to plan parsing. Missing only the contrast with enquiry_describe and any note on whether the field list can change.

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 clarify. The mention of the field key as the linking concept between this call and submit_enquiry is a small bonus but does not apply to any argument of this 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 states precisely what the tool returns for the Structured Settlement Compare enquiry: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. That is a specific resource with an enumerated payload, and naming submit_enquiry as the consumer helps separate it from sibling tools. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implicitly conveys usage by saying answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which frames this as the discovery step before submission. However, it never states when to use this versus enquiry_describe, nor any preconditions or exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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