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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states what information is returned, but does not explicitly say this is a read-only retrieval operation, nor does it discuss error conditions or authentication. For a metadata lookup tool, the stated content is reasonably 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 compact and information-dense. The first sentence enumerates exactly what fields are returned, and the second sentence gives the actionable relationship to submit_enquiry. Every word earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 with no output schema, the description fully specifies the output contents and connects them to the downstream tool. There are no significant gaps: the agent knows what data will come back, how it is structured conceptually, and how to use it.

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?

This tool has zero parameters, so the schema is already fully covered. The description adds useful semantic context beyond the schema by explaining that the returned field keys should be used as keys when calling submit_enquiry, which helps an agent connect the output to a subsequent invocation.

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 what the tool provides: every field of the Void Clearance Quotes enquiry with its key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It identifies the exact resource and content scope, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling 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 practical usage guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, showing how this tool feeds into submission. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against enquiry_describe, but the intended workflow is clear.

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