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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly describes the output contents (field metadata) but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only, side-effect-free operation. Since the nature of the tool is purely informational, this is not misleading, but it leaves the safety profile implicit.

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?

The description is two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and lists the field attributes; the second provides a direct usage hint. It is efficient and immediately actionable.

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 metadata tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description explains what the tool returns, the scope (Metal Fabrication Quotes enquiry), and how to use the result. It does not specify the output format (e.g., array of objects), but the listed attributes give sufficient context for an agent to interpret the result.

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 the schema is empty. The description adds meaning by explaining what the output will contain, which is more relevant to the result than to parameters. With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter semantics further.

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 a specific verb (returns) and resource (fields of the Metal Fabrication Quotes enquiry) and enumerates the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It clearly distinguishes from siblings: it describes field definitions, not the enquiry process itself (enquiry_describe) nor submission (submit_enquiry).

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 explicitly connects usage to submit_enquiry ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), implying this tool is a prerequisite for constructing answers. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against enquiry_describe, so some inference is left to the agent.

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