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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It conveys that this is an inspection/metadata tool with no inputs and enumerates expected output attributes, which implies a read-only lookup. It does not explicitly state a return format, authorization requirements, or error behavior, but the simple, zero-parameter nature limits the severity.

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 efficient sentences front-load the tool's purpose and then supply the key integration detail. Every phrase contributes; there is no redundant filler.

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 metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the return fields, scales to the full enquiry, and ties to submit_enquiry. No missing behavior is necessary for correct invocation.

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 and the schema covers that completely, so parameter-semantic work is already done. The description adds no parameter explanations, which is appropriate; it instead clarifies output keys for downstream submission.

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 identifies the resource (fields of the ADR Courses enquiry) and the content return (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It differentiates from submit_enquiry by telling agents to key answers with these fields, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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 final sentence gives concrete guidance: answers passed to submit_enquiry must be keyed by these field keys. This implies the tool's role in the submission flow, but it never states when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or mentions exclusions.

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