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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses what the tool provides and the content of that output, including the allowed options where present. It implies a read-only metadata lookup with no side effects, though it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the exact contents of the returned field metadata, and the second sentence gives a concrete next-step instruction for using the output.

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 fully explains what data will be returned and how to use it with submit_enquiry. An agent has enough information to call the tool and correctly apply its results.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to add. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing further required.

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—the Bin Rules Checker enquiry—and enumerates what is exposed (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get' and does not directly distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, so it is clear but not fully differentiated from siblings.

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 description gives direct practical usage context: it tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool should be consulted to learn the fields before submitting. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it differs from similar enquiry tools.

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