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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the entire disclosure burden, and it does name the return payload fields (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), which is the main behavioral question for a zero-param lookup. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only, side-effect free, or what happens on unknown/missing enquiry types.

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, both front-loaded with the substantive content: what is returned first, then how to use it. No filler, no restatement 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?

For a parameterless, output-schema-less lookup tool, the description supplies the return field list and the handoff to submit_enquiry, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is the relationship to the sibling enquiry_describe, which an agent must guess at.

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 no parameter semantics to document; baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'field key' refers to the return value and the keying convention for submit_enquiry, not an input, which is correctly framed.

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 states a specific resource — every field of the SEO Devon enquiry — and enumerates exactly what each field record contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options). An agent knows this returns the enquiry's field definitions rather than answers. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, which likely overlaps.

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 an explicit downstream instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent this is a discovery step preceding submit_enquiry. There is no statement of when NOT to use it or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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