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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that the tool returns a comprehensive field listing including options and flags, which is useful. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only introspection operation, but the content strongly implies it. There is no mention of error behavior, ordering, or output shape, though for a zero-parameter metadata tool this is a moderate 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 compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence enumerates exactly what the tool provides, and the second gives an actionable pointer to submit_enquiry. The most important information 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 simple, zero-parameter metadata retrieval tool, the description covers the returned fields and their role in the submission workflow. It lacks an explicit statement about the absence of side effects and does not mention what happens if no fields exist, but these are minor for this use case.

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 no parameters and the schema reflects that, so parameter semantics are nearly irrelevant. The description still adds value by explaining that the returned field keys should be used as keys when calling submit_enquiry, which connects this tool's output to the sibling's input even though no parameters exist here.

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 (Dilapidations Quotes enquiry) and the data returned (field key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is not phrased with an explicit verb like 'returns' but is unambiguous. It mentions submit_enquiry but does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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?

The last sentence, 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' implies this tool is for gathering the field keys needed before submission. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe, nor does it give exclusions or alternatives beyond the implicit submission workflow.

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