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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the content returned (field metadata) and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, whether it makes any external calls, or what the exact response structure is. The description is informative but stops short of being fully transparent about the behavior beyond the data shape.

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?

The description is two sentences, tightly packed with essential information. The first sentence lists the data attributes, and the second explains the integration with submit_enquiry. No filler or repetition; everything earns its place.

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 what the tool returns, and it does: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also explains the connection to submit_enquiry. However, it doesn't specify the exact format (e.g., array of objects, object keyed by field key) or mention how enquiry_describe relates, which leaves a small gap for an agent deciding between the sibling tools.

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 adds contextual meaning by explaining that the field keys are meant to be used as keys when passing answers to submit_enquiry, which helps the agent understand the purpose of the returned keys even though there are no input parameters to document.

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 resource ('every field of the Industrial Fridge Service enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is included (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining how the output relates to that tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention enquiry_describe or use an action verb like 'returns'.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (before submitting) and how the output should be consumed. It doesn't explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, but it provides clear context for the primary intended workflow.

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