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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses exactly what the tool returns: the fields' keys, labels, types, required flags, help text, and allowed options. The wording suggests a read-only metadata lookup, and directing answers to submit_enquiry reinforces that this tool itself does not submit. It does not mention side effects, but none are implied.

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 front-loads what the tool provides, and the second gives a concise, actionable usage note. 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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it names the resource, the fields returned, and how to use the results. The only missing piece is a direct comparison with enquiry_describe to fully disambiguate from a sibling tool, but overall it gives an agent enough to call it correctly.

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 and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description adds useful context about the returned values' structure and how they map to submit_enquiry, which helps the agent use the output correctly. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description meets it.

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 exposes the field definitions of the Subsidence Survey Cost enquiry, listing key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This is a specific resource with a clear purpose. It implicitly differentiates from submit_enquiry by directing answers to that tool, but does not explicitly distinguish 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 a useful downstream instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This implies the tool is used to discover the fields needed for submission, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or when not to use it. The usage context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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