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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool exposes and, by directing submission to submit_enquiry, indicates this tool is a metadata lookup rather than the submission action itself. It stops short of explicitly stating read-only behavior or response container format, but for a no-parameter field retrieval tool this is solid disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the resource and required detail fields, the second gives the integration instruction. The most important information is front-loaded and every word 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 no-input tool without an output schema, the description tells the agent what will be returned and how to use it for submission. The main gap is the unaddressed sibling enquiry_describe, which leaves some ambiguity about when to choose one over the other, but the definition is otherwise sufficient.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document and the zero-parameter baseline applies. The description adds related value by noting that answers should be keyed by the field keys, which clarifies how the tool's output will be consumed by 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 names the specific resource ('Commercial Heat Pump Cost enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not contrast with the sibling enquiry_describe, but the content makes the tool's role clear.

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?

It provides a direct usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how to connect this tool's output to the submission flow. However, it does not discuss when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or provide any exclusion criteria.

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