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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior; it does so by specifying the output content (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and by indicating that submission belongs to submit_enquiry rather than this tool. It doesn't mention session, auth, or mutability, but those are low-risk for a zero-parameter fields listing.

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 concise sentences: the first front-loads the output scope and content, the second gives a direct usage instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no input schema and no output schema, so the description must explain what the agent will receive; it does so by naming every field attribute and noting allowed options where present. It also tells the agent how the result feeds into submit_enquiry, completing the relevant context.

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?

There are no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing the description needs to add beyond the empty 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 clearly identifies the tool as exposing every field of the HMO Licence Checker enquiry, enumerating the attributes each field carries. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and does not differentiate itself from sibling enquiry_describe, so it isn't a 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 explicitly tells the agent to key submit_enquiry answers by the field keys returned here, which defines a clear usage path. It doesn't state alternatives or exclusions among siblings, so it stops short of full guidance.

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