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 does so well: it specifies exactly what each field record contains, including help text and allowed options. It omits auth/rate-limit or caching behavior, but for a static form-metadata read that is a minor gap.

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 what is returned and followed by the actionable follow-up. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return shape and the intended next step (submitting answers keyed by field key). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 a concrete resource – every field of the SEO company for small business enquiry – and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), so an agent knows this is a field-definition lookup. The verb is implicit (the title 'The questions the enquiry asks' carries some of the load), and it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_describe, keeping it short of a 5.

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 supplies clear downstream context: call this to learn the field keys, then 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' That tells the agent the workflow position of this tool relative to submit_enquiry. It stops short of a 5 because it never states when to prefer this over the sibling enquiry_describe or any exclusion.

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