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 largely meets it by listing the exact fields returned and hinting at the key/value linkage with submit_enquiry. It omits any statement about side effects or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter read-only lookup that is a minor gap.

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, no filler, and the payload description is front-loaded before the integration hint. 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it does so item by item while linking the result to submit_enquiry. The only omission is routing the agent away from enquiry_describe when field metadata is what is actually wanted.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. No misleading parameter claims are made.

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 enumerates exactly what this tool returns for the Cost SEO enquiry: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. That is a clear resource-level statement, though the verb is implied rather than stated and it does not 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 explicit forward guidance: use the returned field keys when calling submit_enquiry. It does not explain when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, so the sibling boundary is left to inference.

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