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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of what is returned (including help text and allowed options), which compensates for the absent output schema, but says nothing about permissions, whether the field set is static or configurable, or caching/freshness 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by how to use the result. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of 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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so field by field, which is exactly what an agent needs to form a submission. It would be complete with a note on how this differs from enquiry_describe, but for a zero-parameter read tool it is sufficient.

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 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add relevant semantics by explaining that keys returned here are the same keys used to submit answers via submit_enquiry, giving the return-value semantics a downstream purpose.

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 names the specific resource (the Web design Guildford enquiry) and enumerates exactly what it returns: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It is clearly distinguishable from submit_enquiry, though it never mentions the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving some ambiguity about which inspection tool to pick.

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?

It gives a concrete usage context by instructing that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this tool is the discovery step before submission. It does not state any exclusions or when to prefer enquiry_describe over this one, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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