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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape in detail (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It also discloses the contract that answers must be keyed by field key. It stops short of stating permissions or confirming the read-only nature explicitly.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its returned fields, then the integration hint. No filler and every clause 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?

Given there is no output schema, the field enumeration is essential and present, and the submit_enquiry linkage closes the loop for the agent. The only gap is the relationship to enquiry_describe, which is left for the agent to work out.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed; nothing further is required.

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 (every field of the Copywriting for SEO enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each field carries: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 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?

It gives downstream workflow guidance ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), which implies the discover-then-submit pattern. However, it never states when to use this versus enquiry_describe, so the agent must infer the split between the two sibling lookup tools.

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