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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is transparent about the output contents and notes that options appear only where applicable ('where there are any'). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the nature of a field-listing tool makes that sufficiently clear.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the first sentence listing the exact output coverage and the second sentence giving actionable usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter tool, the description covers the essential return fields and connects to the downstream submit_enquiry workflow. It lacks an explicit response format or a note about ordering/edge cases, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to use 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 no parameter semantics because none are needed; it instead focuses on the return contents, which is appropriate.

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 DSEAR Assessment Cost enquiry') and enumerates what is returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and options. It distinguishes this tool from submit_enquiry by instructing that answers should be passed there using field keys, though it does not explicitly 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 gives a clear usage context: retrieve field metadata so answers can be submitted to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to enquiry_describe, but the primary workflow is well implied.

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