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 transparency. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or requires any authorization. It only describes the content of the response, not the behavior or safety profile. This is a gap for a tool that is likely a data retrieval, but the description does not confirm that.

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 two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence enumerates the exact attributes returned, and the second sentence explains the relationship to submit_enquiry. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps additional guidance to one essential 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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is returned (field attributes) and how to use it (keyed for submit_enquiry). It does not mention return format or error conditions, but for a simple listing tool that is probably acceptable. However, the presence of a sibling tool enquiry_describe is not addressed, which could leave ambiguity about when to use this tool. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 input schema is empty, so there are no parameters to describe. Per the baseline for tools with zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate since the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. The description does not add parameter semantics, but that is not required 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 explicitly states that this tool returns every field of the enquiry with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and options. It clearly names the resource (the enquiry fields) and the action (listing them), and also references how to use the output with submit_enquiry, distinguishing it from that sibling. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.

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 provides context on how to use the results with submit_enquiry ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling enquiry_describe. There is no exclusion or comparison, so an agent must infer when this tool is the right choice. The usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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