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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses the informational content returned, but it does not mention read-only status, authentication, output format, or side effects. This is adequate 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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core content and ends with practical cross-tool guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 getter, the description is largely complete: it states the scope, enumerates the output fields, and connects to the submission workflow. However, without an output schema, it could more explicitly state the return shape (e.g., list or map).

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 there are no parameter semantics to document. The description appropriately focuses on the output, and the baseline of 4 applies since parameter documentation is not 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 names a specific resource ('the Forensic Accountant Cost enquiry') and enumerates exactly what is returned: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It is clearly distinct from submit_enquiry, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from 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 gives actionable usage guidance: after reading the fields, pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This makes the intended workflow clear, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast it with enquiry_describe.

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