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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses what the tool provides: field metadata including allowed options where present, and it connects the result to the submit_enquiry workflow. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or free of side effects, but the metadata-focused content strongly implies it.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core scope, enumerates the relevant field attributes, and ends with a practical, actionable instruction. 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 absence of an output schema, the description does a good job specifying what the response contains: field keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and allowed options. It also situates the tool within the larger enquiry workflow. A small gap is the lack of explicit context about how enquiry_describe differs, but this does not prevent correct invocation.

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 is empty, so the description has no parameter semantics to add. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description usefully clarifies that the returned field keys are the keys to use when calling submit_enquiry.

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 tool as returning every field of the Texas Foundation Repair Cost enquiry along with attributes like key, label, type, and required. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe beyond the implied focus on fields.

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 description gives actionable usage guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by the field key. This makes the intended workflow clear. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or provide exclusion criteria.

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