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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns and how the result should be used, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether there are auth requirements, or how the output is structured. This is adequate but not richly 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, each earning its place. The first focuses on the output contents, the second on downstream usage. No filler or redundant restatement.

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, read-only metadata retrieval tool, the description fully covers what is needed to call it correctly: what the response contains and how to use it with submit_enquiry. No output schema exists, so explaining the return content here is essential, and the description does exactly that.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that the returned field keys are the correct keys for submit_enquiry payloads, which gives the agent actionable knowledge beyond the empty schema.

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 Food Hygiene Alerts enquiry') and enumerates the attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', but the meaning is unambiguous. The final sentence also distinguishes it functionally from submit_enquiry.

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: the returned field keys should be used when passing answers to submit_enquiry. It implicitly tells the agent when this tool is relevant, though it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like enquiry_describe or checker_*.

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