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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the exact shape of the returned payload (key, label, type, required, help text, options) — valuable given there is no output schema. It does not cover auth requirements, caching, or error behavior, so it stops short of full transparency.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the return contents, the second gives the downstream action. The most decision-relevant information (what fields come back) is front-loaded.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned field attributes, which is what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the absence of any disambiguation from the sibling enquiry_describe.

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 adds no parameter meaning to add, though the 'keyed by field key' clause usefully explains how the returned keys are consumed by submit_enquiry.

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 specific resource it returns — every field of the dealership SEO enquiry (key, label, type, required flag, help text, options). That is a concrete verb-less but resource-specific statement an agent can act on. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by naming it, but does not distinguish itself from the sibling 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' tells the agent what to do downstream with the keys, which is a genuine workflow hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus enquiry_describe, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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