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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the kind of information returned and the keying convention for submission, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only introspection tool, describe the exact output shape, or mention any error or empty-result behavior. Still, for a simple no-parameter metadata query, the disclosed behavior is reasonably adequate.

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, information-dense sentence followed by a practical pointer to submit_enquiry. Every part earns its place, and the key content is front-loaded before the usage note.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain the return value, and it does by listing all the field attributes and noting where options are allowed. It also explains how to use the results with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about the overall return shape, but the information is sufficient for a no-parameter metadata tool.

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, and the description adds no parameter details because none are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description even connects the resulting field keys to another tool's parameter expectations.

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 what the tool provides: every field of the Exhibition Stand Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be passed there keyed by field key, though it does not explicitly contrast itself 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?

The description gives a clear usage context: retrieve field definitions, then pass answers to submit_enquiry using the field keys. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, but the relationship to submit_enquiry provides enough practical guidance.

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