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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return shape: keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and allowed options. It does not state that the call is read-only/side-effect free, nor any auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a zero-parameter lookup it is substantially transparent.

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, zero filler. The first front-loads what the tool returns; the second front-loads the actionable next step, so an agent gets the payoff immediately.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back and how to use it. Minor gap: it does not clarify the top-level container of the result (a list/array of field objects) or ordering.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details and instead explains how the returned keys should be reused downstream.

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 states the resource precisely (every field of the Link building SEO service enquiry) and enumerates the returned attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is not a tautology, though it uses a noun phrase with no explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the sibling 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?

It gives one concrete usage instruction — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which implies this is a discovery step before submission. However, it never says when to use this versus the sibling enquiry_describe, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.

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