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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well for a zero-parameter discovery call: it discloses the exact shape of the returned payload, including conditional content ('allowed options where there are any') and the key field's role as the submission identifier. It does not state whether the field set is static or versioned, but nothing is contradicted.

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 tight sentences with no filler: the first enumerates the returned fields, the second states the downstream usage. The most actionable detail (keying answers by field key) is front-loaded in the second position without burying the payload description.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe return values, and it does so field by field, including optional options lists. What remains unstated is anything about the value domain of 'type' or whether field sets vary by enquiry variant, but for a simple read-only enumerator this is essentially complete.

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 takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description goes further by explaining how the returned 'key' values map to the parameter keys expected by submit_enquiry, which is the only parameter-relevant semantics this tool has.

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 specific resource (the Insurance by Profession enquiry) and enumerates exactly what it exposes: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. It is clearly distinguishable from submit_enquiry, which it references, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling enquiry_describe.

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 states the follow-on action clearly: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent this is the field-discovery step before submission. It gives that positive workflow context but stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct routing statement versus enquiry_describe.

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