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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (the six field attributes) and the keying contract for downstream submission, which is genuinely helpful. It says nothing about mutability, permissions, or whether the field set is static, though for a simple field-listing read there is little risk to disclose.

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 and purposeful: the first declares contents, the second declares how the output is consumed. The field enumeration is slightly list-like but each item is meaningful, so nothing is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return value — and it does, enumerating all field attributes plus the option list. Combined with the pointer to submit_enquiry, an agent has enough to call it and use the result. Only the missing contrast with enquiry_describe keeps it short of 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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter guidance because there is nothing to parameterize.

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 concretely what the tool returns — key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options for the enquiry's fields — which is a specific resource with enumerated contents. It also ties itself to the sibling submit_enquiry, but it does not distinguish itself from enquiry_describe, so its identity against the full sibling set is only partly resolved.

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" implies this is the discovery step that precedes submission, giving an implicit when-to-use. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer enquiry_describe instead, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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