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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output (list of field attributes) and implies a read-only metadata retrieval. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication, or error conditions, but for a simple listing tool these are not critical. It adequately conveys the tool's behavior.

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 fluff. It front-loads the core content (what fields are returned) and then gives a direct usage pointer. Every word 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?

The tool has no parameters and no output schema, and the description covers all necessary information: what is returned, the structure of the output, and how to use it. Nothing needed for an agent to correctly invoke or consume the tool 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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds no parameter documentation because none are needed. Per the rubric, 0 params merits a baseline of 4, and the description is consistent with that.

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 precisely what the tool does: it returns the fields of the EOR Compass enquiry, enumerating key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This is a specific verb (list/enumerate) and resource (enquiry fields), clearly distinct from sibling tools like enquiry_describe (which likely describes the enquiry overall) and submit_enquiry (which sends answers).

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 includes a direct usage instruction: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent that the tool is a prerequisite for submit_enquiry, implying when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough for the intended workflow.

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