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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content in detail (including conditional allowed options), which is more than the title alone. However, it never states that this is a side-effect-free read, nor anything about scope, size, or auth, so the behavioral profile is only partially covered.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then a single actionable follow-up. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must describe the return payload, and it does so reasonably completely across six aspects. Minor gaps remain (no mention of whether one or many enquiries exist, ordering, or pagination), but nothing essential is missing 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds useful meaning by tying the returned 'field key' to how answers must be keyed when calling submit_enquiry, which clarifies the semantic link between output identifiers and the sibling tool's inputs.

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?

States precisely what is returned (every field of the Asbestos Survey Cost enquiry) and enumerates the shape: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is also distinguishable from the sibling submit_enquiry, which it names, so an agent can pick it out without opening a schema.

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 a clear workflow: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent this is the discovery step before submission. It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it or contrasting with enquiry_describe, so it is context-rich rather than fully prescriptive.

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