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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses exactly what the tool returns and clarifies that answers should be passed to submit_enquiry, reinforcing that this tool itself does not perform submission. It could mention the exact response format, but there is no misleading or hidden behavior.

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 enumerates the returned field attributes in a compact way, and the second sentence provides the follow-up action. The most important content 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 tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does a good job covering what data is returned and how it should be used. It does not specify whether the result is an array or object, but for a field-listing tool this is unlikely to prevent 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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description adds useful contextual semantics by explaining that returned field keys are the keys to use when calling submit_enquiry, which helps the agent connect this tool's output to a sibling's input.

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 the resource (Holiday Pay Calculator NZ enquiry) and the specific payload returned: every enquiry field with its key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It is easy to distinguish from siblings like calculate and submit_enquiry because it is about field metadata, not calculation or submission.

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 second sentence gives actionable guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies the correct workflow of fetching fields first and then submitting. It does not explicitly compare with siblings such as calculator_describe or enquiry_describe, but the intended usage context is clear.

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