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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the output content (field attributes) and implies a read-only operation with no side effects. It also provides the context for using the results with submit_enquiry. However, it does not mention error conditions, pagination, or exact response format, which are gaps for a tool without annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key attributes. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is concise and easy to parse.

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 metadata tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It enumerates the fields and gives a usage pointer. While it could specify the exact return format (e.g., a list of objects), the described attributes are enough for an agent to understand what to expect. Overall, it is complete for its simplicity.

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 correctly avoids parameter explanations since none exist. It adds no parameter semantics because there are none to add, 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 states that the tool returns every field of the Duct Cleaning Quotes enquiry, listing the attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by focusing on field structure, though it does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 description gives a practical usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This implies when to use the tool (to obtain field keys for submission). However, it does not explicitly state when to use it instead of enquiry_describe or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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