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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the full shape of the returned field metadata rather than just naming the tool. It also signals that options are only included where they exist, which sets expectations about optional data. It does not state side-effect safety, but for a read-only fields listing that is implied by the content.

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. The first sentence front-loads the main purpose and contents, and the second sentence gives the follow-up action needed to use the results. 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?

For a simple zero-parameter metadata endpoint with no output schema, the description is complete: it lists the fields returned and connects them to the submission workflow. There is no missing information an agent needs to invoke it 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 adds relevant context about the meaning of a field key (used to key answers for submit_enquiry), which is useful even though there are no input parameters to document.

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 (Cyber Insurance Cost enquiry fields) and enumerates the exact metadata returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by instructing that answers are passed to that tool keyed by field key, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not contrast with 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 provides a concrete usage context: collect the field keys here, then pass answer values to submit_enquiry keyed by those field keys. This is clear guidance for the main workflow, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer enquiry_describe or when not to use this tool.

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