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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it clearly discloses the return payload contents. It also communicates a behavioral relationship: the output is meant to feed submit_enquiry. Since this is a read-only metadata listing, the lack of side-effect discussion is acceptable.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core enumeration of returned attributes is front-loaded, and the usage note follows in a compact second sentence.

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-parameter metadata listing with no output schema, the description provides enough information to know exactly what will be returned and how to apply it. It omits error handling or authentication details, but those are not expected for this simple query-like tool.

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 no parameters, so the schema is trivially fully covered and no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds useful context about how the returned data should be used, which is the relevant semantic content. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 the tool returns every field of the Cyprus Non-Dom Calculator enquiry and enumerates the exact attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from sibling submit_enquiry by noting that answers are passed there keyed by field key. Though it lacks an explicit imperative verb, the resource and scope are unambiguous.

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?

It clearly connects to submit_enquiry by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use for answers. This gives an explicit workflow context for when this tool is useful. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, so the exclusion guidance is not fully stated.

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