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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add value by disclosing which field attributes are returned and how keys map to submit_enquiry. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the operation is read-only, describe the response format, or note edge cases (e.g., empty field set). No contradiction, since annotations are absent.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the core resource ('Every field of the Redundancy Calculator Ireland enquiry'), then lists the attributes and the follow-up action in order. No filler or 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is returned, what the attributes are, and how the result is used with submit_enquiry. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the sibling enquiry_describe, which is a minor omission for a tool this simple.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by explaining what each returned field attribute represents and how the keys are used downstream, which helps the agent interpret and subsequently use the output.

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?

States a specific resource — the fields of the Redundancy Calculator Ireland enquiry — and enumerates the exact content returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It partially distinguishes itself by referencing sibling submit_enquiry, though it never explicitly contrasts with 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?

Implied usage: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' conveys the workflow the output feeds into, so an agent can infer this tool is meant for discovering submission keys. However, it never explicitly says when to use this tool versus alternatives like enquiry_describe, and no exclusions are stated.

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