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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clarifies that the tool returns field metadata rather than submitting anything, and it provides the relationship to submit_enquiry. However, it does not disclose whether this is a pure read operation, whether any network/cost implications exist, or what happens if the enquiry has no fields.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The core content of the response is listed efficiently, and the key usage pointer to submit_enquiry is included without 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 output contents and how the result connects to a sibling tool. It is slightly light on explicit behavioral guarantees and sibling differentiation, but overall it gives an agent enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 the schema provides no parameter meaning to add. The description compensates by explaining that the returned field keys are used for submit_enquiry, which is the main semantic information an agent needs.

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 Malta Company Cost enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and options. It does not fully distinguish itself from the sibling enquiry_describe, though the detailed field-level focus and pointer to submit_enquiry make the primary purpose clear.

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 its usage by saying answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells the agent this tool is the source for field keys. However, it does not explicitly say when to use enquiry_fields versus enquiry_describe, nor does it state any conditions or exclusions.

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