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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the returned content categories and the integration point with submit_enquiry, which is more than a minimal description would provide. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety, but for a parameterless metadata-listing tool this is a reasonable gap.

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?

One dense, information-rich sentence with no filler. The field content is front-loaded, and the connection to submit_enquiry is appended naturally.

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 simple, parameterless metadata tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and how it should be used. It could be more explicit about the return shape or sorting, but nothing critical is missing for 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, so schema coverage is effectively 100% with an empty schema. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed, matching the baseline for a parameterless 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 exactly what the tool exposes: every field of the enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by telling the agent to use its keys when submitting answers, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling enquiry_describe.

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 implies the tool should be used before submitting an enquiry, since it says to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It gives context but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with alternatives such as enquiry_describe.

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