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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly indicates this is a read-only metadata operation and describes the output contents. It does not explicitly state 'returns a list' or mention absence of side effects, but the intended behavior is unambiguous from the wording.

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 compact and front-loaded: it immediately identifies the resource and enumerates the returned attributes in one dense sentence, followed by a single actionable instruction. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no filler.

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 without an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it enumerates the field attributes and explains how to use them with submit_enquiry. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the response container (e.g., list vs object), but this is unlikely to prevent correct invocation.

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 description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds value by linking field keys to the submit_enquiry tool, which helps the agent understand how to use the returned data.

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 precisely states what the tool provides: every field of the Malta Tax Refund Calculator enquiry, including key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like calculate, submit_enquiry, and enquiry_describe by describing a metadata-retrieval resource.

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 actionable usage guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, making the integration point explicit. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool when field definitions are needed before submission.

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