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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns field metadata and that answers should be keyed by field key, which implies a read-only introspection behavior. However, it doesn't describe the return format, whether it includes all fields or only some, or any edge cases like conditional fields.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence lists the exact contents, and the second provides the actionable usage instruction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 introspection tool, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns and how to use the result. The only minor gap is not describing the exact output structure (e.g., array vs object), but with no output schema, the description does enough.

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, so the schema is empty. The description compensates by explaining what the output contains (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and how to use it with submit_enquiry. With 0 params, baseline is 4, and the description meets it.

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's purpose: it returns every field of the Card Machine Pricing enquiry, including key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like submit_enquiry and enquiry_describe.

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 explicitly tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, which provides clear usage context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the instruction to use it as a precursor to submit_enquiry is strong guidance.

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