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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents in detail: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It implies a read-only schema-retrieval operation and does not mention side effects, which is appropriate for this tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and content, with no filler. The second sentence adds a practical usage pointer that 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 zero-parameter field-listing tool, the description is largely complete: it specifies the output fields and the expected downstream use. It does not define the exact response format, but the listed attributes make the structure understandable enough for an agent to proceed.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by noting that the field keys are intended to be used when passing answers to submit_enquiry, which helps the agent understand how this tool's output relates to the sibling tool.

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 Martyn's Law Cost enquiry fields—and enumerates exactly what information is provided (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is distinct from submit_enquiry, which is mentioned as the downstream consumer, though it does not explicitly contrast with 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 description gives clear contextual guidance: use this tool to obtain field keys and then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those field keys. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative conditions, but the intended workflow is evident.

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