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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses what the tool returns: field metadata including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It also explains how the returned field keys relate to submit_enquiry. It is clearly a read-only metadata operation, though it does not explicitly state side-effect absence or response shape.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The core content is front-loaded, and the pointer to submit_enquiry adds actionable value 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 with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what each field record contains and how to use the result with submit_enquiry. No critical information for calling this tool 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 tool takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is little for the description to add. The 0-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details.

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 Malta Residency Cost enquiry, and lists what each field includes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It stops short of a 5 because it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch' and does not differentiate from 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?

The description gives concrete usage context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this tool should be used before submitting an enquiry. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe or provide exclusions.

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