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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden: it discloses the full return payload (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and the fact that the output is keyed by field key, implying a map structure. There are no side effects or parameters to warn about, so the main missing context is limited to non-essential details like ordering or staleness.

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, under 40 words, with the core content enumeration in the first sentence and the actionable downstream use in the second. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 introspection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, the constituent attributes, and how the output connects to submit_enquiry. Minor gaps such as the exact JSON shape or whether help text is always present are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so there is no input semantics to document; the 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies. The description adds useful meaning by clarifying that the field keys it returns are the keys used to submit answers to submit_enquiry.

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 a precise resource and content set — 'Every field of the Employee Cost Australia enquiry: key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options' — so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on field-level metadata rather than enquiry-level description, and it references submit_enquiry as the consumer of the keys.

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 gives an explicit downstream instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent when this tool matters — as a precursor to submitting answers. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when not to call it, such as contrasting with enquiry_describe.

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