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 largely meets it by disclosing the returned payload shape (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options). It implicitly behaves as a read/metadata fetch, but never explicitly states that it is read-only or that it has no side effects.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned resource and followed by the actionable instruction for using the result. No filler, no redundancy.

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 no-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-field inventory an agent needs to consume the result and tells it how to feed that result into submit_enquiry. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any explicit statement of read-only behavior.

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 of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter semantics because there are none to explain.

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 Web design Sussex enquiry) and enumerates exactly what is returned (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It links to the sibling submit_enquiry as the consumer of the output, so an agent can tell it apart from submit_enquiry. It does not, however, differentiate itself from enquiry_describe, the other read-side sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' tells the agent this is the prerequisite discovery step before submission. There is no explicit when-to-use versus enquiry_describe, and no when-not-to-use or exclusion guidance.

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