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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose what the response contains (field metadata), which is the tool's core behavior. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, though the nature of a zero-parameter introspection tool makes this low-risk. Acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 front-loads the core purpose and output content; the second earns its place by connecting the result to the sibling submit_enquiry. Every word adds value.

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 low-complexity, zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential ground: what is returned (field metadata attributes) and how to use it (submit keyed by field key). Minor omissions like the exact response format (list vs. object) are not critical given the low complexity.

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 empty schema already communicates this, and the description contains nothing misleading about inputs. There is no param information to add, and none is needed.

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 the resource ('every field of the Executive Search Fees enquiry') and enumerates precisely what is returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. The verb is implicit rather than explicit ('returns'/'lists'), but the intent is unambiguous. The closing reference to submit_enquiry helps distinguish this introspection tool from its siblings.

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 instruction to 'pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' gives the agent clear guidance on how to consume the output and implies this tool should be used before submitting an enquiry. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternative guidance, and the boundary with enquiry_describe is never addressed.

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