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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the full shape of what comes back (keys, labels, types, requiredness, help text, allowed options). It omits whether output is paginated or ordered, and any auth/rate considerations, but for a read-only metadata lookup that is a minor gap.

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, zero waste. The resource and returned fields come first, and the follow-on instruction for submit_enquiry is placed last, which is the right front-loading.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must define the return shape, and it does so field by field. It also closes the loop by explaining how the result feeds submit_enquiry, so an agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately adds no parameter detail, instead explaining that the returned values are keyed by field key for use in submit_enquiry.

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 (every field of the Strength Standards Calc enquiry) and enumerates exactly what it returns: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like enquiry_describe and submit_enquiry, which do different jobs.

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?

It implies usage by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which hints that this is a pre-submission discovery step. However, it never explicitly says when to call this rather than the sibling enquiry_describe, and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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