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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a metadata/read operation returning enquiry field definitions, and it explicitly points submission elsewhere ('Pass answers to submit_enquiry'), implying no side effects here. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the operation is a simple no-parameter lookup.

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 the full content list, and a second sentence that connects the output to the next tool in the workflow. No filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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 with no output schema, this description is complete: it enumerates the returned field metadata and explains how to consume it downstream. An agent has everything needed to call it 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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description still adds value by explaining that the returned field keys are the canonical keys to use when submitting answers to submit_enquiry.

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 identifies exactly what the tool exposes: every field of the Malta Payroll Calculator enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This is a specific resource and content list that distinguishes it from the broader enquiry_describe and the action-oriented 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?

It gives clear workflow guidance: retrieve fields first, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus each sibling, but the context is sufficient for an agent to select it for schema discovery.

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