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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It provides substantive behavioral detail by enumerating exactly what the tool exposes for each field and noting that options are included only where they exist. The instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry clarifies that this is a non-submitting retrieval of field metadata.

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 one efficient sentence plus a short, actionable pointer. Every clause adds information: the specific enquiry, the field attributes returned, the conditional nature of options, and the relationship to submit_enquiry. No filler.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the enquiry, lists the returned attributes, and tells the agent how to use the results. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, which is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that the returned field keys are the values to use when calling 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 Mezzanine Floor Cost enquiry') and specifies the exact contents returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns', so it stops just short of the strongest purpose statement.

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 guidance 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies the tool is a precursor to submission, but it does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_fields versus enquiry_describe or submit_enquiry. The usage context is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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