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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently enumerates the returned field metadata and notes that options are included only when they exist. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but the nature of the tool as a field metadata lookup makes that omission minor.

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?

The description is two sentences with no filler: the first sentence lists exactly what the tool exposes, and the second gives a concise usage pointer. It is front-loaded and every phrase 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?

For a zero-parameter introspection tool, the description covers the full expected output structure and the intended downstream use with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more explicit about being the prerequisite lookup step before submission, but nothing critical 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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description still adds useful context by relating the returned field keys to how they should be used when calling 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 clearly identifies the tool as exposing every field of the Site Investigation Cost enquiry, with the specific attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not directly distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, though the reference to submit_enquiry helps separate it from the submission tool.

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?

The instruction to 'pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' provides useful workflow context for how the output should be consumed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus enquiry_describe or when not to use it, so the selection guidance is mostly implicit.

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