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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It is clearly a metadata read (no mutation implied) and it helpfully describes the shape of each returned field, but it does not state that the operation is side-effect free, whether it requires auth, or anything about caching/rate limits.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, then the downstream usage hint. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's enumeration of return fields (key, label, type, required, help text, options) carries the necessary informational load. It omits any safety/behavior framing, but for a zero-parameter read endpoint it is nearly complete.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is required, and the sentence about keying answers by field key concerns downstream usage rather than this tool's inputs.

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 a specific resource (the fields of the roofing Lead generation enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. No explicit verb ('return'/'list') is used, but the delivered content is unambiguous, and it references submit_enquiry so an agent can place it among its siblings.

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' implies this tool is the discovery step before submission, which is useful usage context. However, it never states when to use this versus enquiry_describe, and it provides no explicit when-not guidance.

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