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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool exposes all fields of the enquiry, including constraints like requiredness and allowed options, and it clarifies that actual submission is handled by submit_enquiry, not this tool. This is sufficient for a zero-parameter, read-only field-listing operation.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the essential content of the tool, and the second gives actionable integration guidance. Both sentences earn their 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 tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the enquiry, lists every returned field attribute, and explains how to use the output with submit_enquiry. A slightly more explicit statement that the tool returns a field listing or read-only schema would make it fully complete.

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 no parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful guidance by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use when submitting answers via submit_enquiry, which helps the agent apply the output correctly.

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—the fields of the Private Label Manufacturers enquiry—and enumerates the exact attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). However, it lacks an explicit operation verb like 'returns' or 'lists', relying on the tool name and phrasing to convey that it is a field-listing tool.

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 provides clear workflow context by instructing the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by the field key. This tells the agent what to do with the output and implicitly distinguishes this tool from the submission tool, though it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or contrast it with enquiry_describe.

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