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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly explains what the tool provides and how the returned field keys relate to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or error conditions, but for a simple field-listing tool the described output is largely sufficient.

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 compact sentences deliver all essential information without filler. The core content is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second adds a directly actionable usage note.

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 fully covers what the agent needs: what fields are returned, the meaning of the output, and how to use the output with submit_enquiry. There are no significant missing details.

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 baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds useful contextual meaning by explaining that returned field keys are the keys to use when submitting answers, which helps an agent understand how the output is consumed.

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 — every field of the Agricultural Building Cost enquiry — and enumerates the returned attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' and it does not distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, so it falls short of a 5.

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 second sentence gives clear practical usage: answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by the field keys returned here. This establishes a workflow but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or how it compares to enquiry_describe, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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