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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It conveys that the tool exposes field metadata and enumerates its content, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe any response-shape or error behavior. This is adequate for a metadata-retrieval tool but leaves some safety inference to the agent.

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: the first front-loads the complete output content, the second immediately gives the actionable connection to submit_enquiry. No filler or redundant wording.

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 enumerates what the returned fields contain and how they relate to submitting an enquiry. It could be more complete by contrasting with enquiry_describe or describing the field list's scope, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add; baseline 4 applies. The description adds related value by clarifying that field keys are the expected keys for submit_enquiry answers.

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 specifies the resource ('every field of the Livery Prices enquiry') and enumerates the exact attributes returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It is clear about what the tool provides, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists' and does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 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 second sentence gives an actionable usage direction: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This establishes when the tool is useful (before submitting an enquiry), but it does not explicitly address when not to use it or how it compares to enquiry_describe.

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