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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior, caching, or the shape of the response (e.g., array vs object). It is not misleading, but it lacks explicit behavioral traits.

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 concise sentences. The first lists the exact attributes returned, and the second explains the follow-up action with a sibling tool. No fluff, front-loaded with the core output description.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what fields are returned, what attributes are included, and how to use the keys with submit_enquiry. It does not describe the return format (e.g., array vs object), but the mention of 'keyed by field key' implies a map-like structure. Overall, adequate for its 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 input schema has zero parameters, and the description does not need to explain them. Baseline for 0 params is 4; the description adds value by stating that the tool takes no input, which is implicit in the empty schema but clarified by the description's focus on output.

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: to return every field of the Corp Tax Calculator enquiry, enumerating specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling submit_enquiry by explaining that the returned keys are used to pass answers to that 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 provides clear usage context: obtain the fields to understand the enquiry structure, then use the keys when calling submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly contrast with other siblings like enquiry_describe, but it implies a workflow that differentiates it from submission.

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