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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses what the tool returns (field metadata including keys, labels, types, requiredness, help text, and options) and implies a read-only metadata lookup. But it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some behavioral context unstated.

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 fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core content of the response, and the second sentence provides actionable, relevant guidance linking to submit_enquiry. Every part 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 is largely complete: it states what fields the enquiry includes and how to use those field keys. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with enquiry_describe, but the agent has enough information to call this tool correctly and use its output.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is adequate; the description adds no parameter semantics because none 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 resource ('Every field of the Commercial Drainage Quotes enquiry') and enumerates the returned content: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve,' and it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool enquiry_describe, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 an indirect usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how the output should be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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