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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes the output contents and notes that options are provided where applicable, which is helpful. It does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only metadata lookup, nor describe the response shape or lack of side effects, leaving some behavioral details 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 one dense, front-loaded sentence: it names the resource, enumerates the returned attributes, and closes with an actionable usage note. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 metadata lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what content will be returned and how that content should be used with submit_enquiry. It is slightly incomplete because it does not address the sibling enquiry_describe or state the exact output format, but it is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description's note about passing answers keyed by field key adds practical context about how the returned keys are used, which is a small bonus.

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 identifies the exact resource ('Commercial Laundry Cost enquiry') and specifies the returned data: key, label, type, whether required, help text, and allowed options. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not distinguish itself from sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 instruction to 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies that this tool should be used to obtain the field keys needed for submission. It never explicitly states when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe, nor gives any exclusion criteria, so usage guidance is only implied.

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