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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does describe the shape of what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not explicitly state the operation is a safe read or note any auth/rate-limit behavior, leaving a small gap.

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 sentences, no filler, with the returned-field inventory front-loaded and the workflow instruction last. Every clause earns its place.

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-param discovery tool with no output schema, describing the return fields and the hand-off to submit_enquiry covers what an agent needs. The only shortfall is not clarifying the relationship to the sibling enquiry_describe.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed and instead explains how the returned keys are consumed by submit_enquiry.

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?

States precisely what the tool returns: the field metadata (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options) for a specific enquiry. It is clearly a discovery/schema tool, distinguishable from submit_enquiry. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which keeps it from 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 final sentence routes the agent downstream: answers go to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this is the pre-submission discovery step. It gives clear context but no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison against enquiry_describe.

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