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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the tool returns field metadata and nothing else, implying a read-only, side-effect-free operation. It also specifies the output's composition (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and how the output should be consumed. This is sufficient for an agent to understand the behavior; it does not claim any mutation or side effects, and there is no contradiction with any annotation.

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 two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose (listing fields) and the second providing actionable guidance. Every word serves a function; there is no redundancy or filler. It is efficient and well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It specifies what is returned (field metadata with detailed attributes) and how to use the result (pass answers to submit_enquiry). It does not mention error handling or authentication, but given the tool's simplicity and the absence of annotations, the description covers the essential operational context an agent needs. It could add a note about the absence of pagination or the need to call it once, but these are minor gaps.

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 is no parameter schema to explain. The description adds meaning by detailing the output structure, which is the only relevant semantic content. Since there are no parameters to clarify, the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description compensates by explaining the data returned, which is the tool's only input/output aspect.

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 HACCP Software Compare enquiry, enumerating specific attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, options). This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like submit_enquiry, which is for submission, and compare_criteria/options/table, which are for comparison features. The intent is unambiguous.

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 a direct usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' This tells the agent to fetch fields first and then use submit_enquiry, establishing a clear workflow. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the linkage to submit_enquiry implicitly positions it as the prerequisite for form submission. It could explicitly name alternatives, but the guidance is strong.

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