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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the returned content in detail without claiming any mutation or side effect. The instruction to pass answers to submit_enquiry implies this is a read-only metadata lookup, and the tool's output structure is made 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then delivers the actionable guidance about submit_enquiry, making every sentence useful.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs: what the tool returns, the meaning of each field, and how to use the result with submit_enquiry. Nothing essential is missing.

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 of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter detail because there are no parameters to describe; the empty schema is complete and consistent.

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 exactly what the tool exposes — every field of the HMO Mortgage Calculator enquiry — and enumerates the returned attributes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools like calculator_describe and enquiry_describe by focusing on structured field metadata.

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 concrete usage context: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells an agent this tool is the source for building valid submissions. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the connection to submit_enquiry is clear.

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