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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states exactly what information the tool exposes and that it covers every field. It does not describe the return format or explicitly state that it is read-only, but for a simple metadata-fetching tool the core behavior is clear enough.

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 compact: one sentence enumerates the returned field attributes, and a second sentence connects the result to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a zero-parameter metadata tool, the description covers the output contents and the expected downstream usage well. The main gaps are the lack of explicit contrast with enquiry_describe and no mention of the exact output shape, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds useful context by explaining how the returned field keys connect to 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 returning every field of the TM44 Quote enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by stating that answers should be keyed by field key, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'list' or 'return' and does not differentiate 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 concrete usage direction: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent how the output should be used with the submission sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over enquiry_describe or provide exclusion criteria.

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