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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well by describing the returned record shape in detail (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), which substitutes for a missing output schema, but it never explicitly states that the tool takes no input, has no side effects, or is a pure read operation.

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, no filler. The return-shape description is front-loaded, and the workflow hint is appended last. 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?

There is no output schema, so the description reasonably documents what the tool returns, and for a zero-parameter discovery tool that covers the essentials. It stops just short of fully specifying behavior (e.g. that it returns all fields unconditionally with no filtering), but nothing critical for correct invocation 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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description's mention of 'field key' refers to the sibling tool's keying convention rather than any input to this tool, so there is no parameter meaning to add or clarify.

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 resource (every field of the Capital Gains Tax HQ enquiry) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. An agent knows this is a schema-discovery read tool, and the final sentence ties it to the downstream consumer, distinguishably separating it from submit_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 description gives clear context for how the output is consumed ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key'), which effectively routes the agent through the fields->submit workflow. It does not, however, explicitly state when to call this versus the sibling enquiry_describe, nor does it frame it as a prerequisite step, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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