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

Annotations already signal safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds specific behavioral guarantees: it only returns a stable schema hash and complete-field receipt, and never types, uploads, applies, clicks, or submits. This directly addresses the most important operational concern for an agent deciding whether to call it during a fill workflow.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the action and conditions, then adds non-behaviors without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description is excellent on purpose and safety, but it omits how to populate the required `fields` parameter and what the `send`, `apply`, and `submit` booleans mean. With zero schema descriptions, this is a notable gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names no parameters. The purpose clause implies `fields` is the form schema input, but `send`, `apply`, `submit`, and `tenant_id` are left unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently determine how to set them.

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 an explicit verb ('Enumerate'), a precise resource ('every required and optional ATS form field'), and a timing constraint ('before any fill attempt'). It also lists non-behaviors ('never types, uploads, applies, clicks, or submits'), which clearly separates it from sibling fill/receipt actions.

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 phrase 'before any fill attempt' gives a clear trigger condition for invoking this tool. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the non-behavior list, so it falls just 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.