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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It makes clear this is a metadata/read-style operation that exposes field definitions rather than mutating anything, and it specifies what information will be returned. It does not discuss error or edge-case behavior, but for a simple field-listing tool this is 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 two sentences with no filler. The scope and contents are stated up front, and the final sentence provides practical guidance on how the returned field keys should be used.

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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the fields returned and links to the related submission workflow. The relationship to enquiry_describe is left implicit, but that does not prevent an agent from using this tool 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 and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The mention of using field keys with submit_enquiry adds useful contextual meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 tool as returning every field of the Fire Compliance Cost enquiry, and lists the exact attributes included: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. The title reinforces the meaning, and the closing sentence distinguishes it from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers must be keyed by field key.

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 concrete usage context: fetch the fields first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly compare with enquiry_describe or state when not to use this tool, but the intended workflow is clear.

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