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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully describes the output content (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and hints that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention any side effects, permissions, or caching behavior. Minimum viable for a metadata tool.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by a concise usage hint. No filler, 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?

For a simple metadata tool with no input parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete: it lists the exact fields returned and explains how to use the output with submit_enquiry. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 input schema has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none exist, and none is needed.

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 exactly what the tool returns: 'Every field of the Immigration Adviser Finder enquiry: key, label, type, whether required, help text and the allowed options where there are any.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by noting 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' An agent can tell this is a field-discovery tool, not a submission tool.

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 implies usage: get the fields here, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly state 'use this before submit_enquiry' or list when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the correct workflow.

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