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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what data the tool returns and ties it to the submission flow. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety or read-only behavior, but the semantics of listing fields strongly imply a non-mutating metadata lookup, and the absence of parameters supports this.

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. The first sentence front-loads the full inventory of returned content; the second connects the tool to its sister tool with a specific instruction. Every word 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?

The tool is simple: no parameters, no output schema, no annotations. The description explains what fields are returned and how to use them with submit_enquiry. It could be marginally more explicit about return format or read-only behavior, but given the low complexity, it is substantially 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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context about how the returned keys are used with submit_enquiry, even though there are no parameters to explain.

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 indicates the tool provides all fields of the Snagging Software enquiry, listing the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). The verb is implicit rather than explicit ('Every field…' rather than 'Returns every field'), and it does not directly differentiate from enquiry_describe, but the resource and content are unambiguous.

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 description gives actionable context: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells an agent when this tool is relevant (preparing a submission). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the use case is clear enough for selection.

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