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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool returns field definitions and does not suggest any side effects, but it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe the response format in structural terms.

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. It states the core content first and adds the integration hint in the second sentence, making it easy to scan.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description is complete: it enumerates the output attributes, indicates the source enquiry, and explains how results relate to submit_enquiry. No output schema exists, but the description supplies enough about the expected content.

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 empty schema requires no parameter documentation. The description still adds useful context by explaining field keys are intended for use with submit_enquiry.

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 as the fields of the Business Valuation Cost enquiry and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). The verb is implied rather than explicit, but the intent is unmistakable and the tool is distinguishable from submit_enquiry through its focus on field metadata.

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 actionable context: it tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the appropriate workflow of consulting fields before submission, but it does not explicitly exclude other uses or contrast with enquiry_describe.

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