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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses exactly what data the tool returns (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and implies a read-only metadata operation by directing actual submission to submit_enquiry. It stops short of explicitly stating 'read-only' or describing output formatting.

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 wasted words. The primary content (field metadata) is front-loaded, and the usage direction is placed second. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 retrieval tool, the description is nearly complete: it defines the output and the follow-up workflow. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting that calling this tool has no side effects or by distinguishing itself from enquiry_describe, but these are minor gaps.

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 adds useful semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use when passing answers to submit_enquiry, which clarifies the relationship between this tool and the submission tool.

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 resource ('Every field of the Forklift Training Quotes enquiry') and enumerates what is returned, but it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'get'. The title 'The questions the enquiry asks' partially compensates, and the reference to submit_enquiry helps distinguish it from that sibling.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent how to use the result and names one sibling. However, it does not mention enquiry_describe or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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