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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It conveys that the tool exposes field metadata and how that metadata should feed into submit_enquiry, which implies a read-only metadata retrieval purpose. But it never explicitly states the operational behavior, such as whether it returns a list/object or has no side effects.

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 one focused sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a practical usage pointer. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 metadata tool, the description covers the essential content and the follow-up action. It lacks an explicit statement about the return structure, but the enumerated field attributes give enough context for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so parameter-level semantics are not needed. The description correctly focuses on what the tool returns and how to use it, matching the 0-parameter baseline.

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 Long Service Leave Calculator enquiry') and the information exposed (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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 provides actionable usage context by instructing the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not, however, discuss when to prefer this tool over the similar-sounding enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, so exclusion guidance is missing.

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