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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It discloses that the tool returns the full set of enquiry fields and their metadata, and implies a read-only listing behavior. It does not explicitly state side effects or lack thereof, but nothing in the description suggests mutation, and the focus on field metadata makes the behavior reasonably transparent.

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 filler. The core output content is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the practical usage note follows immediately. 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description provides the essential context: what is returned and how to use it. It could go slightly further by explicitly stating the return shape (e.g., a list/array of field definitions), but the current wording is sufficient for an agent to call the tool and interpret results.

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 no parameters, so the empty input schema is fully covered. The description adds helpful context by explaining how the returned field keys relate to submit_enquiry, which is useful even though there are no parameters to document.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('every field of the Golden Visa Calculator enquiry') and enumerates the specific attributes returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This is more specific than the title alone and distinguishes it from submit_enquiry by telling the caller to use the keys for submission.

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 by stating that field keys returned here should be used to pass answers to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly explain when not to use this tool versus calculator_describe or enquiry_describe, but the purpose is specific enough that the intended workflow is evident.

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