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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return contents (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), which is essential since there is no output schema. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only lookup or noting any auth/caching behavior, so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler: the return contents are front-loaded and the workflow note follows. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from the title.

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 lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the identity of the enquiry, the shape of each returned field, and how to feed the keys forward. It could be marginally more complete by stating the read-only nature or the array structure, but no critical gap remains.

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 takes zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes slightly beyond by explaining how the returned field keys are consumed by submit_enquiry, but no input semantics exist to clarify.

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 identifies a specific resource — every field of the 'Website designers for small business' enquiry — and enumerates exactly what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). This lets an agent distinguish it from submit_enquiry, though it never uses an explicit verb like 'retrieve' and relies on a noun phrase to convey the read operation.

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 second sentence gives downstream context — 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' — which implies the intended workflow. However, it says nothing about when to call this versus the sibling enquiry_describe, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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