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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the returned field attributes: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This makes the tool's output behavior predictable without needing to infer much, though it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the specific output components. The additional instruction about submit_enquiry is relevant and earns its place without adding verbosity.

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 is complete: it enumerates the shape of the returned data and explains how to use those data with submit_enquiry. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call and process the result 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 zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description appropriately avoids discussing parameters, and the empty input schema confirms no arguments are required. No additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 tool's subject—every field of the Classic Car Restoration Cost enquiry—and lists what information each field includes. It does not use a strong imperative verb like 'lists' or 'returns,' and it does not explicitly differentiate from enquiry_describe, but the content makes the purpose evident.

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 provides actionable guidance by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the tool is used to discover valid keys before submission, though it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or give exclusions.

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