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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job by disclosing exactly what the tool exposes: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but nothing in the description implies side effects and the content is described concretely.

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 with no filler: the first enumerates the returned field metadata, and the second connects the tool to the submission flow. Every sentence earns its place and the key scoping detail is front-loaded.

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 sufficient: it states the exact resource, the field metadata returned, and how to use the results. Minor gaps are the lack of an explicit no-side-effects statement and no direct comparison to sibling enquiry_describe, but the description still gives enough to select and invoke 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 and there is no schema gap to compensate for. The description adds useful forward context by explaining that returned field keys should be used when calling submit_enquiry.

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 Damp Survey Prices enquiry') and enumerates the contained elements, so an agent can tell this is the field-definition tool rather than submit_enquiry or enquiry_describe. It lacks an explicit action verb like 'lists' or 'returns', which keeps it from 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 clearly signals when this tool is useful: before submitting answers, get the field keys. It provides actionable context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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