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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the returned content (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about whether the call is read-only, whether the field set is static or configurable, or any auth/rate constraints.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the one actionable instruction about keying answers to submit_enquiry. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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 must convey the return shape, and it does so by listing every field attribute an agent needs to build a submission. For a zero-parameter, no-annotation tool this is close to sufficient, though it could note that the field set is authoritative for submit_enquiry.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there are none to describe.

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 specific resource it returns — every field of the Google reviews calculator enquiry, enumerated as key/label/type/required/help text/options. It lacks an explicit verb ('returns', 'lists'), but the noun phrase is precise enough that an agent knows this is a field-metadata lookup rather than a submit action.

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 second sentence implies the workflow — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which tells the agent this precedes submit_enquiry. However it never states when to call this versus the sibling enquiry_describe, and there is no explicit ordering or prerequisite statement.

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