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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that this is a metadata/field-listing operation and that its keys feed into submit_enquiry, implying a read-only, non-mutating behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that it performs no submission, makes no changes, or describe how the field data is returned.

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 concise and well-structured: the first sentence states what is included, and the second provides actionable usage guidance. It contains no filler or repetition.

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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it specifies the fields and properties returned and connects the tool to the sibling submit_enquiry workflow. It could mention response format or ordering, but those are minor gaps for a field-listing utility.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no input schema for the description to compensate for. The description adds useful semantic meaning by highlighting the 'key' field and how it maps to submit_enquiry answers.

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 exposing every field of the Texas Solar Cost Calculator enquiry and enumerates what each field definition contains: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It is distinguishable from siblings by focusing specifically on enquiry field metadata, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 provides a clear usage cue: the field keys returned should be used when passing answers to submit_enquiry. This gives practical context for when the tool is useful, even though it does not explicitly compare against enquiry_describe or calculate.

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