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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully describes the shape of the returned payload, which substitutes for the absent output schema, but it never states that the operation is read-only, side-effect free, or cheap to call repeatedly.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The content of the returned fields is front-loaded, and the actionable submission hint follows immediately.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by listing the returned field attributes, so an agent knows what to expect. The one omission is routing clarity versus enquiry_describe, which matters given three closely related siblings.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The mention of "keyed by field key" adds a useful hint about how the returned keys are consumed downstream.

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 names the concrete resource (every field of the Birmingham agency enquiry) and enumerates the metadata returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which plausibly covers similar ground.

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?

"Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key" establishes the downstream workflow and implies this is the discovery step before submission. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to enquiry_describe, leaving the sibling choice to inference.

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