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 does state the output scope—every field, including options where present—and implies a read-only informational role, but it never explicitly says the call has no side effects or what the result structure looks like.

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 deliver a complete field inventory and a usage pointer with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and every clause adds value.

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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what will be returned and how the results should be used. It does not mention sibling differentiation or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but those are minor gaps for such a simple tool.

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 input schema has zero properties and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The field-key mention is about downstream submit_enquiry usage, not this tool's parameters, so the zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies.

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—the enquiry field set—and enumerates its contents: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling enquiry_describe, so it is clear but not maximally distinct.

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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives concrete usage context: this tool should be used to discover field keys before submitting an enquiry. It does not state when to prefer this over the comparison siblings or enquiry_describe, but the downstream guidance is clear.

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