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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It tells the agent that the tool returns a comprehensive field definition and that submission is handled by submit_enquiry, which implies this tool itself is read-only and non-mutating. It could be more explicit about side-effect-free behavior or output shape, but the description is reasonably transparent for a metadata-listing tool.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates exactly what is returned, and the second provides the key usage instruction. It is front-loaded and every phrase 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 simple zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential content and its relationship to submit_enquiry. It could more explicitly describe the return structure (e.g., list vs object) or confirm the absence of side effects, but none of these are critical given the tool's simplicity and the presence of the sibling hint.

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 description cannot add much parameter-level detail. It does add value by explaining that field keys from the output are the expected keys for submit_enquiry, which is semantically useful. This meets the 0-parameter baseline and adds a relevant cross-tool hint.

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 states what the tool exposes: every field of the enquiry with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It connects to submit_enquiry by saying answers should be keyed by field key, which helps distinguish it from the comparison-focused siblings. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', and it does not contrast with 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 instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' provides clear context and a concrete usage pattern. It implies this tool should be consulted to learn the field keys before submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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