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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adequately communicates that the tool is an informational/read-only lookup by listing returned fields and implicitly contrasting with submission. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, requires no parameters, or describe any limits, errors, or data-source behavior.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core content—what fields are returned—and then adds a valuable usage pointer to submit_enquiry. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 metadata tool without an output schema, the description covers the return content comprehensively: keys, labels, types, requiredness, help text, and allowed options. It also connects the tool to the submission workflow, but it leaves unstated how the fields are packaged in the response and any prerequisites or failure behavior.

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 input schema has zero parameters, and the rubric baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4. The description adds no param-related burden because there are none; instead, it explains what the returned fields represent, which is appropriate for this tool.

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 states that the tool returns every field of the Structural Report Cost enquiry, enumerating the attributes included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is distinct from submit_enquiry by describing field metadata rather than submission, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from 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?

The description gives clear contextual guidance: it tells the agent that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, implying this tool should be used to discover valid keys and options before submitting. It does not explicitly state alternative conditions or exclusion rules for enquiry_describe, so it falls short of a 5.

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