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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real value by enumerating the returned attributes in lieu of a missing output schema, which is effectively a return-shape disclosure. However, it says nothing about access requirements, whether fields vary by enquiry, or error behavior.

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, zero filler. The content statement comes first and the downstream usage instruction second, which is the right front-loading for a schema-discovery tool.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description is close to sufficient: it lists the returned fields and tells the agent how to use the keys. It stops short of naming when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, which is the only meaningful remaining 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 there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any parameter gap.

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?

It names a specific resource (every field of the Working Capital Quotes enquiry) and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), which is far more specific than a tautology. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by naming it as the consumer of the returned keys, though it never states the retrieval verb explicitly.

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' implies the workflow (fetch fields, then submit) but gives no explicit when-to-use rule, no conditions, and no contrast with enquiry_describe, the other enquiry sibling. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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