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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool returns field metadata and that submission is the responsibility of submit_enquiry, which implies a read-only introspection behavior. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or the exact output representation, but for a field-listing tool this is fairly transparent.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and ends with the actionable next step. It packs in the resource name, the full list of returned attributes, and the submit_enquiry linkage with zero wasted words.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential content: it names the specific enquiry, lists all field metadata dimensions, and explains how to consume the result. It does not spell out the exact data structure (e.g., whether options are arrays or objects), but that is a minor omission given the exhaustive attribute list.

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 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds value by explaining that the returned field keys should be used as the keys when calling submit_enquiry, which is the only meaningful semantic context for a parameterless call.

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 ('Vacant Property Security Cost enquiry') and enumerates the returned field attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'List' or 'Return', so it reads more as a definition than an action. It differentiates from submit_enquiry by directing answers there, but does not contrast with 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 workflow context: fetch the fields, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This tells the agent how to use the result and connects it to the submission sibling. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or how it relates to enquiry_describe, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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