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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does state what the call returns and how the values are to be reused downstream. It never implies mutation or side effects, which is consistent with a schema-introspection tool. It stops short of 5 because it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or failure modes.

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, both load-bearing: the first enumerates the returned field attributes, the second routes the result into submit_enquiry. No filler, and the resource being described is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameters, the description must explain the return shape, and it does list the per-field attributes returned. A consumer can call it and know how to feed the result forward, though the absence of any mention of typical option counts, ordering, or error behavior is a minor gap.

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; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side. It appropriately spends its words on output shape instead of inventing parameter guidance.

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 a specific resource — 'Every field of the Wedding Cost Checker enquiry' — and enumerates exactly what each field entry contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). That is far more precise than a tautology. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, whose role is presumably adjacent, leaving some ambiguity an agent must resolve on its own.

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 gives a clear consumption path: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', which tells the agent this tool feeds submit_enquiry. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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