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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval by saying it returns fields, but it does not explicitly state it has no side effects or describe the output structure (e.g., array vs object). This is a minor gap for a simple query tool.

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 sentence with two clauses: it front-loads the purpose (what is returned) and then adds usage guidance. It is efficient, though it could be split for readability. No wasted words.

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 parameterless, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and how to use it. The only omission is an explicit note on the output data format, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is not critical.

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 schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the fields returned, which is beyond the empty schema. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, a 4 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 the tool returns every field of the Engine Rebuild Cost enquiry, enumerating the specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by mentioning how to use the output, but does not explicitly differentiate from enquiry_describe, so not a perfect 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?

It explicitly instructs to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, giving a clear workflow. However, it does not state when to prefer this over the sibling enquiry_describe, though the intended use is implied.

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