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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool returns conceptually—fields with their metadata—but does not specify the exact return structure, whether the field list is static or dynamic, or whether there are any side effects. As a read-oriented metadata tool this is mostly adequate, but the absence of an explicit return format leaves some ambiguity.

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 deliver the core purpose and the practical next step with no filler. The description is front-loaded with the resource and content, then immediately provides usage guidance. 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, enumerates the returned metadata, and explains how to use the result. It could be slightly more explicit about the output shape, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the presence of clear workflow guidance.

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 is trivially fully described and the description has no parameter details to add. Per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline of 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing parameter explanations.

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 tool's resource: every field of the Motor Trade Insurance Compare enquiry, and details what information is provided (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that answers should be passed there, though it does not explicitly compare itself to enquiry_describe or the comparison siblings.

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 a clear usage context: use this tool to discover the field keys, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those keys. This implies the tool should be used before submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the workflow is clear enough for this simple metadata lookup.

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