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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the returned metadata, but never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether results are cached or stale, or whether the field set is locale/agency scoped.

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, zero filler, and the returned-attribute list is front-loaded before the downstream usage note. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so by enumerating key, label, type, required, help text and options, plus how the output feeds submit_enquiry. An agent has enough to call and consume it, though it is silent on field ordering or conditional visibility rules.

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 correctly implies a parameterless, whole-form introspection call and adds the meaningful detail that field keys are the join key for submit_enquiry answers.

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?

States concretely what the tool returns: the key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options for every field of the PPC agency Leeds enquiry. It is readily distinguishable from submit_enquiry, which it names directly, though it draws no explicit line against 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 closing sentence gives clear operational context: fetch the field metadata here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which establishes this as the pre-submission discovery step. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over the sibling enquiry_describe, so no exclusions are offered.

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