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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states what the tool exposes and even notes that allowed options are included 'where there are any.' It does not mention response format or side effects, but for a zero-parameter read-only metadata query, this 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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what data the agent will receive, and the second provides a concrete workflow connection. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: which enquiry, what fields are returned, and how to use the keys downstream. An explicit statement of the response format would make it fully complete, but the current text is adequate for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4 under the rubric. The description adds value beyond that by explaining the meaning of field keys and how they should be used when calling submit_enquiry. There are no parameter details needed beyond this.

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 ('CCTV Installation Cost enquiry') and enumerates the exact data returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. The lack of an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return' is minor because 'Every field of...' unambiguously conveys the operation. It also partially distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by describing how to use its output, though it does not differentiate 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 description implies usage by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which suggests enquiry_fields is the prerequisite for submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or when not to use it. The guidance is present but only implied, not explicit.

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