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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It makes clear this is a metadata/read-style tool that exposes field definitions and does not suggest any side effect; the content list also conveys what the agent will receive. It could be more explicit about read-only status or output format, but for a zero-parameter introspection tool the behavior is well implied.

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 sentences, no filler. The enumeration is front-loaded, and the downstream usage note is placed second.

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 no-input metadata listing with no output schema, this description is complete: it lists what fields are returned and how to use them. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema needs no elaboration. The description adds value by explaining how the returned field keys are meant to be used with submit_enquiry, which is the only parameter-related context an agent needs.

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—the SR&ED Claim Calculator enquiry—and enumerates the exact field metadata returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb such as 'lists' or 'returns,' so it stops short of the crispest purpose statement, but it is unambiguous and distinct from 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 sentence 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives a concrete downstream use case and tells the agent why the keys matter. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of calculator_describe or enquiry_describe, but the context is clear enough.

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