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

The annotations already declare that this is a read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and notes that requested related records will be included, but it does not cover error behavior, permissions, or response details beyond include.

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 short sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the primary purpose and then clarifies include behavior and the endpoint.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is largely complete. It explains the single-enquiry retrieval and include behavior, though it could say more about the response shape if an agent were expected to rely solely on prose.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the include behavior but does not add syntax, formatting, or other semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 a specific resource and operation: retrieve one enquiry by UUID. It distinguishes the single-record nature from list tools through 'One enquiry' and mentions the optional related-record include, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 explains the purpose of include for fetching related records, which is useful usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus street_list_enquiries or when to omit include.

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