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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it does disclose the shape of the returned data (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options) in the absence of an output schema. It says nothing about auth needs, caching, or whether the field set is static, which keeps it out of the top band.

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, zero filler, and the core payload (what is returned) is front-loaded before the usage hint. 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by listing the returned attributes and tying them to submit_enquiry. It is slightly incomplete on ordering/optionality of the field list itself, but nothing critical for calling the tool 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 the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax for the description to clarify. The description instead redirects attention to the field keys used as answer keys in submit_enquiry, which is the relevant semantic detail for a no-input tool.

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 a specific verb-and-resource: it returns every field of the SEO Cornwall enquiry, enumerating exactly what each field entry contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). An agent can tell this is the form-schema fetch tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling enquiry_describe.

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" gives a clear workflow context and names the downstream tool, implying this is the prerequisite lookup step. It stops short of stating when not to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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