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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it usefully describes the returned shape (key, label, type, required, help text, options) even though no output schema exists. It does not state that the call is a side-effect-free read, nor mention permissions, rate limits, or whether the field set is static or context-dependent.

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, no filler: the first defines the payload, the second tells the agent how to consume it. The most important information (what the fields are) 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?

For a zero-parameter introspection tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return fields and the downstream usage, which covers what an agent needs to call it correctly. The only shortfall is failing to differentiate it from the sibling enquiry_describe.

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 4 is the baseline and there is nothing to document. The mention of 'keyed by field key' usefully ties the output keys to the input of submit_enquiry, adding a small amount of cross-tool semantics.

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 Yacht Charter Quotes enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). That is concrete enough to separate it from enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry, though it never states the verb ('returns'/'lists') 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?

It implies the workflow by saying answers go to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which hints this is an introspection step that precedes submission. However it never says when to use this versus the similarly named sibling enquiry_describe, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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