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 does disclose the return shape in detail (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options). It omits whether the call is safe/read-only or requires auth, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool that is a minor gap rather than a misleading one.

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 field list front-loaded and the usage instruction second. Slightly dense but 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?

Since no output schema exists, the description properly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it connects the output to the downstream submit_enquiry call. A note on read-only safety or auth would make it fully complete, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description adds relevant context by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys expected 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?

The description names a specific resource (every field of the White label SEO marketing enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options), so an agent knows precisely what this returns. It does not use an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the intent is unambiguous and it is clearly distinguishable from submit_enquiry, which it references.

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 establishes the workflow linkage: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent when to call this before submitting. However, it gives no guidance on when to prefer this over the sibling enquiry_describe, and states no prerequisites or exclusions.

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