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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the full shape of the response and implies a read-only metadata operation by instructing the agent to pass answers elsewhere for submission. It does not explicitly state the absence of side effects or the exact response format, but for a 0-parameter metadata tool this is sufficient.

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 tight sentences: the first enumerates the response contents, the second tells the agent how to chain the output into submit_enquiry. There is no redundant wording, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 description covers the response contents, which is essential because there is no output schema, and provides the downstream action. It does not explicitly mention enquiry_describe or define the exact container format, but the tool is simple enough that the main usage context is captured.

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 input schema is empty, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what the returned fields are rather than parameter usage, since no parameters need explanation.

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 resource ('Three Phase Cost enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is included for every field: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', but the title and content make the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguish it from submit_enquiry.

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 tells the agent how to use the result, directing answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which also signals that this tool is the look-up step before submission. It does not explicitly contrast with enquiry_describe, so some ambiguity remains between the two enquiry-introspection siblings.

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