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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does describe the returned content shape (key, label, type, required, help text, options), which is genuinely useful. However, it never states that the call is side-effect free/read-only, whether fields are static or configurable, or how the response is structured (list vs object), so key behavioral traits remain implicit.

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 compact sentences with the content of the response front-loaded and no filler. The opening phrase ('Every field of the SEO for architecture firm enquiry') is slightly awkward and domain-jargon heavy, but it is efficient overall.

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, the description effectively substitutes as a prose description of the return structure and points to the follow-up tool. It is nearly complete; only the response container shape and read-only guarantee are left unstated.

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; there are no argument semantics needed. The description does add one semantic instruction about the output keys being the identifiers to use in submit_enquiry, which is useful downstream context.

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 names the resource precisely ('Every field of the ... enquiry') and enumerates what it exposes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), so an agent knows this returns the enquiry's field metadata. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, but it does connect to submit_enquiry as the consumer of its output.

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?

It gives actionable workflow context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent this is the discovery step whose keys feed submit_enquiry. There are no explicit exclusions or a statement of when NOT to use it, and no comparison with enquiry_describe.

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