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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it usefully discloses the returned field metadata and indirectly signals a read-only lookup by directing submissions to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that it performs no side effects or describe output shape or error behavior, so transparency is partial.

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?

Two sentences, both purposeful: the first specifies the content, the second connects the output to the submission workflow. No filler or repetition.

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 listing tool, the description covers what the agent receives and how to use it with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state the return container (e.g., array or object) or the role of enquiry_describe, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 takes no parameters, so the empty schema leaves nothing for the description to explain about inputs. The description adds relevant guidance by telling agents to use the returned field keys as the keying scheme for submit_enquiry, which is value beyond the 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 concretely identifies the resource ('Glazier Prices enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is exposed: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and the relationship to enquiry_describe is not clarified, so it is not a full 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 implies the tool should be consulted before submit_enquiry by saying answers must be keyed by the returned field keys. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or when not to use it.

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