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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains the return content and that it covers every field, but it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, or failure modes. For a metadata-listing tool these are low risk, but the description is still the only source of behavioral information.

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 with no filler. The first sentence packs the full content specification, and the second sentence gives the cross-reference to submit_enquiry, making every clause purposeful.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description must explain what the tool returns, and it does: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also connects to the submission flow. It could say more about the exact value format of options, but it is sufficient 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 takes zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter gaps to fill. The description adds useful semantics by explaining that the returned field keys are the ones to use when calling 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?

The description clearly states that the tool enumerates every field of the Take-Home Compass enquiry and lists what those fields contain (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry, but lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists' and does not differentiate from 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?

It gives an explicit usage hint: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which tells an agent to use this tool to discover the field keys before submitting. It does not discuss when not to use it or compare it directly with enquiry_describe, but the context is actionable.

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