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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly enumerates the returned content but does not state whether this is a read-only metadata lookup, how results are structured, or whether any side effects exist. The submit_enquiry pointer is helpful but relates to another tool's 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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the resource name, lists the exact data attributes, and ends with a practical cross-reference to submit_enquiry. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

As a simple, parameterless metadata tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential return-value information: field key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also gives one integration hint. It does not specify the response format (e.g., array or object), but for this simplicity that is a minor gap.

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 baseline for this dimension is 4. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that returned field keys are the same keys used when submitting answers to submit_enquiry, which helps an agent connect this tool's output to a sibling tool's input.

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: every field of the Venue Capacity Check enquiry, and enumerates what is included (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', and the sibling 'enquiry_describe' could overlap in purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies that this tool is useful before submitting answers by saying 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as enquiry_describe or the checker_* tools, and gives no exclusions.

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