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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It tells the agent the tool returns field metadata and implies a read-only lookup, but it does not explicitly state the absence of side effects, the output shape, or whether field definitions may change. This is adequate for a metadata getter but not fully transparent.

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 tightly written sentences: the first enumerates the full payload and the second gives cross-tool usage guidance. No filler or redundancy; the key information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter metadata tool, the description covers the return contents and the expected downstream mapping to submit_enquiry. It does not specify the response envelope or data type, but with no output schema and a trivial invocation this is a minor gap.

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 schema provides no parameter semantics. The description correctly focuses on the output content and how to use it with submit_enquiry. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is solid.

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 identifies the resource ('every field of the Conveyancing Fees NZ enquiry') and the specific data delivered (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit action verb and does not contrast itself with enquiry_describe, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 an explicit downstream instruction: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This clarifies how the output should be used, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over enquiry_describe, leaving the sibling relationship implicit.

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