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 describes the output contents: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, but for a zero-parameter metadata retrieval tool, the lack of side-effect disclosure is a minor gap. The description is adequate, not exceptional.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the output attributes. Every clause earns its place, and the downstream usage pointer is included without unnecessary padding.

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 simple zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells an agent exactly what information will be returned for each field, and how the keys relate to submit_enquiry. No critical information is missing for 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 there is nothing to document. The description still adds useful semantic context by explaining that field keys are used to submit answers, which helps an agent connect this tool to sibling submit_enquiry. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools is appropriate.

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 what the tool provides: every field of the Retirement Visa Calculator enquiry, along with its metadata. It differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on field-level structure, and even references submit_enquiry as the downstream consumer of these field keys. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and does not directly contrast 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?

The description gives useful usage context by stating that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the tool should be used to discover the enquiry's fields before submitting. It does not explicitly discuss when to avoid this tool or how it differs from enquiry_describe, so it stops short of a 5.

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