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

No annotations are present, and the description does not mention whether the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or any permissions or rate limits. The burden of transparency falls entirely on the description, which fails to address these aspects.

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 a single, succinct sentence that lists the returned attributes and adds a practical note about supplying answers. No redundant or overly verbose wording is present.

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?

Given there are no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool returns. It also gives the caller actionable context (how to pass answers), though it leaves minor ambiguity about whether this is a global form definition or enquiry-specific, which is not fully resolved.

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, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics since none exist, but it does provide context by noting how the returned field keys should be used with submit_enquiry, which slightly aids the caller.

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 states the tool returns every field of the PaywallCompass enquiry, enumerating the exact attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like enquiry_describe and 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?

The description implies the tool is for retrieving field definitions, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives such as enquiry_describe. The cross-reference to submit_enquiry gives some context, but no explicit usage guidance is provided.

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