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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the content of the response (all field attributes) and the expected downstream usage. It does not mention return format or error cases, but for a zero-parameter metadata read this is acceptable.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The resource and its detailed content are front-loaded, and the cross-reference to submit_enquiry is placed at the end without disrupting the core meaning.

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 simple zero-parameter metadata tool, the description covers the returned fields and the practical usage with submit_enquiry. It lacks an explicit statement that this is a read-only operation or a description of the response format, but neither is critical given the obvious intent and 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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics because there are none; it instead explains how the output relates to submit_enquiry, which is useful context.

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 states exactly what the tool does: it returns every field of the Washroom Quotes enquiry, listing key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It clearly distinguishes this from a general description by naming the specific field metadata, and it references the related submit_enquiry tool.

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 usage when you need field-level metadata and explicitly says to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. However, it never contrasts this with the sibling enquiry_describe, so the agent does not get explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance.

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