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 burden, and it does disclose the return payload (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It stops short of stating that this is a safe read-only lookup or whether the form can change, but for a zero-parameter reflection tool the essential behavioral fact – what data comes back – is covered.

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 the tool returns and ending with the follow-on action. Nothing is redundant and nothing needed is missing.

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?

Because no output schema exists, the description's enumeration of returned field attributes is load-bearing and present. It could be slightly stronger on the shape of 'options' or on how it differs from enquiry_describe, but for a simple discovery tool it is close to 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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information beyond the fact that outputs are keyed by 'field key', which is sufficient for a no-arg call.

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 specific resource – the field list of the 'SEO for plumbers' enquiry – and enumerates exactly what each field contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). An agent can tell it is a schema-discovery call. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling 'enquiry_describe', so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 a concrete workflow context: retrieve these fields, then 'pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key', which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a sequence. No when-not-use condition or explicit contrast with enquiry_describe is offered.

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