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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (fields with key/label/type/required/help/options) even though no output schema exists, and the keyed-by-field-key contract is a real behavioral detail. It says nothing about whether the field set is static or tenant-configurable, caching, or auth, which for a zero-annotation tool is a remaining gap.

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, no filler. The payload contents come first and the actionable integration hint (keying answers into submit_enquiry) comes second, so the agent gets the essential facts 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned field attributes, which is exactly what an agent needs to construct a valid submit_enquiry call. It leaves the relationship with enquiry_describe unexplained, which is the one substantive omission.

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 there are no argument semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does add the shape of the field keys that answers must be keyed by, which is the closest thing to parameter meaning this tool has.

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, 'Every field of the Local SEO for law firm enquiry', and then enumerates the exact payload contents (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows precisely what it gets back. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving the boundary between the two ambiguous.

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 a genuine workflow cue: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells the agent how this tool feeds the next step. But there is no statement of when to call this versus enquiry_describe, and no prerequisites or ordering guidance beyond that single downstream hint.

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