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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the shape of what is returned, which is the key trait here. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether the field set is static or varies by enquiry/campaign context, or what happens if an enquiry type is unknown.

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, front-loaded with the returned field inventory, with the actionable submit_enquiry linkage placed second. Minor filler ('where there are any') keeps it just short of ideal.

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 describe return values and largely does by listing the field attributes. For a parameterless discovery tool this is nearly sufficient, though it omits whether the returned fields are fixed for the 'PPC for law firms' enquiry or vary by some scope.

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 defines zero parameters and requires none, so there is no parameter surface to document and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument discovery call rather than misrepresenting any inputs.

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 resource and enumerates its payload ('key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options'), so an agent knows it returns enquiry field definitions. It does not, however, clearly delineate itself from the sibling 'enquiry_describe', leaving some ambiguity about which discovery tool to call.

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 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' implies the intended workflow and names a sibling, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not, and no guidance on choosing between this and 'enquiry_describe'.

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