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 so reasonably well by enumerating the exact payload it returns (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It discloses the data model the caller needs. It does not state that this is a safe read-only lookup or mention any auth/rate constraints, but for a zero-parameter definition fetch the omissions are minor.

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 with essentially no waste; the resource is front-loaded and the follow-up instruction is compact. The first sentence is a dense comma list, which slightly reduces readability, but every clause carries information.

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, read-only definition tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies both the returned field shape and the workflow link to submit_enquiry. Nothing critical to correct invocation is missing, though a note on read-only behaviour and the enquiry_describe distinction would make it fully complete.

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 compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The closing sentence about keying answers by field key explains how this tool's output feeds a sibling, which adds useful meaning without inventing parameter detail.

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 exact resource (every field of the PPC agency Bristol enquiry) and enumerates the returned attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options. It is not a verb+resource phrasing, but an agent can immediately tell this is a field-definition lookup. It references submit_enquiry as the consumer but never distinguishes itself from enquiry_describe, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' establishes the downstream workflow and implies this tool is called before submission. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement relative to enquiry_describe, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. 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.