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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes what the tool returns, including common field metadata and conditional allowed options, and implies a read-only inspection operation. It does not explicitly state 'read-only,' but the content makes the non-mutating nature clear.

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 compact and front-loaded with the key facts: what the tool returns, the exact attributes, and how the output relates to another tool. Every sentence adds value and nothing feels redundant.

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 listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is largely complete: it names the resource, the fields returned, and the downstream submission workflow. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit distinction from enquiry_describe.

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 schema has no parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that field keys are meant to be used as submission keys for submit_enquiry, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 purpose: returning every field of the Penetration Testing Cost enquiry, along with key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is specific enough to distinguish from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 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 usage context by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It implies this tool should be used to retrieve the field structure before submission, but it does not state explicit conditions for when to choose this over enquiry_describe.

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