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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the tool is a read-only inspection of enquiry fields and enumerates the returned content, but it does not mention response shape, option representation, ordering, or any potential side effects.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core scope with 'Every field' and then provides a concise list of returned attributes plus a clear directive for downstream use.

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 with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned and how to use the data with submit_enquiry. Minor omissions like the exact structure of allowed options and field ordering are acceptable given the tool's simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed; its reference to keying answers for submit_enquiry provides useful contextual framing rather than parameter documentation.

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 tool returns every field of the Bank Convert enquiry and enumerates the specific attributes: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It is specific and informative, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling enquiry_describe tool.

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 practical usage guidance by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This clearly connects the tool to a downstream workflow, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over enquiry_describe or the compare_* siblings.

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