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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and handles it well by enumerating exactly what information the tool exposes: keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and conditional options. It does not promise behavior beyond this, avoiding misleading claims for a simple field-listing tool.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the resource and its full returned content, and the second gives the actionable relationship to submit_enquiry. Every word contributes, with no vague filler or repetition of the title.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is effectively complete. It specifies the domain, the fields returned, the conditional nature of options, and how the output should be consumed by submit_enquiry. An agent has enough information to select and interpret the tool 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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the returned field metadata rather than input semantics, and the note about passing answers keyed by field key clarifies how the results should be used.

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 Compare My Conveyancing enquiry') and the specific metadata returned: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also ties the tool to its intended consumer, submit_enquiry, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like compare_criteria or 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 gives a clear usage context: retrieve the fields to learn how to structure answers for submit_enquiry, with keys used as the linking mechanism. It does not explicitly list when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings, but the connection to submit_enquiry provides enough practical guidance.

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