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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about the returned data attributes and implies that the tool itself does not submit anything, because submission is routed to submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or cover context requirements, but for a zero-parameter metadata tool this is reasonably complete.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The first is front-loaded with the resource and its returned content, and the second provides immediate actionable guidance about how the output should be used. There is no filler or repetition.

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, no-argument introspection tool, the description is nearly complete: it lists the output attributes and explains how to use them downstream with submit_enquiry. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly stating whether the result is an object or array and by confirming the read-only nature, but the low complexity keeps the gap small.

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 no parameters and an empty input schema, so parameter ambiguity is not an issue. The description still adds meaning by explaining that the returned field keys are the keys to use when passing answers to submit_enquiry, which connects its output to a sibling tool's parameter contract.

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 identifies the resource clearly: every field of the IDV Deadline enquiry, and enumerates the data it exposes: key, label, type, required, help text, and allowed options. It also distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by explaining that its field keys feed that tool. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' and does not differentiate from the sibling enquiry_describe, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 clear usage context: this tool is the field-discovery step before submitting answers. It implicitly tells the agent not to submit answers here, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name other sibling tools such as enquiry_describe as alternatives.

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