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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains what data is exposed (key, label, type, help text, allowed options) but never explicitly states that this is a read-only metadata call, how the data is ordered, or whether the field set varies. The behavior is largely implied rather than disclosed.

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 tight sentences. The first enumerates the contents; the second gives the practical downstream use. No filler, no repetition, and the most important identifying information is front-loaded.

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, read-only metadata endpoint, the description covers the scope ('GPA Grade Compare enquiry'), the contents, and the relationship to a sibling tool. There is no output schema, so explaining the field attributes here is sufficient context for an agent to call and use the result.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is little for the description to add. It still adds useful cross-tool semantics by explaining that the field key is what should be used to key answers in submit_enquiry, which helps an agent connect the two tools.

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 as 'GPA Grade Compare enquiry fields' and enumerates exactly what it contains (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return,' but the meaning is unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from dataset-focused siblings by anchoring to the enquiry and to submit_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 gives actionable guidance: retrieve these fields so answers can be passed to submit_enquiry using field keys. This signals the intended workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or contrast it with enquiry_describe/dataset_columns, so it misses the highest bar.

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