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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does describe the returned shape (per-field key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options). It does not explicitly state that the call is side-effect free or whether it requires auth, but for a zero-parameter metadata lookup that omission is minor.

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, no filler. The inventory of returned attributes comes first and the routing hint to submit_enquiry second, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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 no-input, no-output-schema tool the description adequately covers what comes back and how to use it downstream. It stops short of noting whether the field list is static or can change, or how conditional fields (options) interact with submission.

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 the baseline is 4. The description usefully adds that returned field keys are the same keys expected by submit_enquiry, which is the only parameter-relevant information that could exist 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 states a specific resource — the fields of the Google Ads consultant enquiry — and enumerates what each field carries (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It also names the sibling submit_enquiry as the consumer of the output, which helps an agent place it in the workflow, though it never contrasts itself with enquiry_describe.

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" gives clear downstream context and implies this tool is the schema-discovery step before submitting. However, it never states when to prefer it over the sibling enquiry_describe, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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