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 burden, and it does disclose the exact return shape (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It does not explicitly state the operation is side-effect-free or that it needs no authentication, but the read-only nature is evident from the content described.

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, no filler, and the returned-field list is front-loaded before the usage note. Every clause 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient: it fully enumerates the return payload and the keying convention. Minor gaps remain around missing-enquiry or error behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds the keying convention that connects the returned field keys to submit_enquiry's input, which is the only parameter-adjacent meaning available here.

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 names the resource precisely ('Every field of the Taxooor enquiry') and enumerates the returned attributes, so an agent can tell it apart from dataset_columns or enquiry_describe. It lacks an explicit verb ('list/describe'), but the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 implies the downstream workflow ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), which tells the agent this is a prerequisite for submitting answers. However, it never states when to call this instead of the adjacent enquiry_describe, nor any preconditions, so guidance is 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.