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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the substantive behavior: a zero-argument lookup whose payload is the full field schema including conditional allowed options. It stops short of stating that the operation is read-only/safe or noting caching or auth characteristics, but the mutation risk profile is implicitly clear since no inputs are accepted.

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, no filler, and the payload contents are front-loaded before the routing hint. Every clause earns its 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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape — and it does, listing every field attribute including the conditional options list. For a zero-parameter read tool with two siblings, nothing an agent needs in order to call 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 the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description usefully explains that the returned 'key' is what answers must be keyed by in submit_enquiry, which is the only parameter-adjacent semantics worth stating.

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 exact resource (every field of the SEO for personal injury lawyers enquiry) and enumerates the attributes returned: key, label, type, required, help text and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by framing this tool as the source of the field keys that submit_enquiry consumes.

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 a clear downstream workflow cue — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which tells the agent to call this before submitting. However, it never addresses the other sibling, enquiry_describe, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone when to pick one over the other.

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