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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain what data will be returned and how it relates to submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or has no side effects. For a simple introspection tool this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 carry all necessary information without repetition or filler. The primary content is front-loaded, and the cross-reference to submit_enquiry is placed at the end as a natural extension of the tool's purpose.

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 simple no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the important return fields and the downstream usage with submit_enquiry. It does not specify the exact response shape or any ordering/grouping details, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the result.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty and schema coverage is effectively complete. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing the description needs to explain about parameters; the mention of field keys refers to output rather than input.

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 states the tool returns every field of the Land Drainage Contractors enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by pointing forward to that tool, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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?

The instruction 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives concrete context for when to use this tool: before constructing a submission. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or how it compares to enquiry_describe, but the workflow hint is clear.

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