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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden but is mostly a structural description of the output. It does convey that this is a read-only metadata tool and implies no side effects, but it does not mention whether the field values or options are localized, whether the schema corresponds to a specific step, or what happens for conditional fields.

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, no filler. The first sentence is front-loaded with what the tool returns; the second sentence gives actionable guidance on using the result. Every sentence 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?

For a zero-input metadata tool, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is returned and how to use it. It is slightly short on guidance for choosing this versus enquiry_describe, but the field-level detail in the description largely makes the tool self-sufficient.

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 parameter semantics are inherently simple. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters and makes clear that the answer to how to use it is through the returned field keys, which is meaningful context.

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 names the tool as returning every field of a specific enquiry, enumerating what is included: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the field-schema/metadata tool for a Conveyancing Fees Ireland 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 explicitly says to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells the agent how to use the output. It does not explicitly state the alternative is enquiry_describe or when to use that instead, so it lacks direct when-not-to-use guidance.

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