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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden and does disclose the returned structure (key, label, type, required, help text, options), which is genuinely useful. It does not state that this is a read-only/side-effect-free call or describe any caching, variability, or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences, with the returned shape front-loaded and the downstream usage trailing. No filler text.

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?

Absent an output schema, the description correctly enumerates the return fields, which is the most important thing for a zero-parameter read tool. It stops short of showing a key format/example or clarifying its relationship to 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 is 4. The description nonetheless adds meaning by explaining that the returned field keys are the ones to use when keying answers for submit_enquiry, tying the output to the downstream call.

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?

It states a specific resource (the SEO services Glasgow enquiry fields) and enumerates exactly what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, leaving the agent to infer which of the two describes the enquiry.

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 tells the agent how the output feeds submit_enquiry (answers keyed by field key), which implies the intended workflow. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing between this and enquiry_describe.

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