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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the nature of the tool as a read-only enumeration of enquiry fields and details what the agent will receive. It does not mention response format or authentication, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool this is adequately 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 with no filler. The first fronts the resource and its content, and the second immediately connects the output to the next actionable step. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete enough to call correctly: it states what is returned and how to use the returned keys. The only minor gap is the lack of any distinction from enquiry_describe, but this does not block correct 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, so the input schema carries no burden. The description adds meaningful semantic context by specifying that the returned 'key' is the value to use when submitting answers to submit_enquiry.

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 ('every field of the Marine Survey Cost enquiry') and enumerates the exact content: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be keyed by field key, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 a clear workflow instruction: obtain the fields first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving that distinction to inference.

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