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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses the kind of data returned (field metadata) and even notes the conditional nature of allowed options. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the response shape, but for a simple introspection tool the behavioral disclosure is solid.

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?

The description is a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and then adds a practical usage pointer. No words are wasted.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential information an agent needs: what the tool provides and how that output relates to the submission workflow. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but the description is adequate for correct selection and 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, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant context by explaining how the returned field keys should be used when calling submit_enquiry, which is more than the empty schema alone provides.

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 what the tool exposes: every field of the Final Pay Calculator NZ enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It is distinct enough from siblings like calculate and submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with enquiry_describe or use a direct verb like 'returns'.

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 provides clear usage context by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which implies this tool is used to discover the available fields before submission. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the intended workflow is clear.

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