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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the tool's behavioral output thoroughly: all field attributes are enumerated. It does not explicitly say the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, but the described purpose as a field-listing tool makes that sufficiently clear.

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 compact sentences with no filler: the first defines the complete output content, and the second adds the key usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place and the information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it fully explains what the tool returns and how to apply that output when calling submit_enquiry. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 input schema is empty and the baseline is 4. The description correctly references how the output keys should be used with submit_enquiry, which is more relevant than parameter documentation here.

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 (the Locum Tax Calculator enquiry fields) and enumerates exactly what is exposed: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', but the meaning is unambiguous and the reference to submit_enquiry helps position it among siblings.

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 implies usage by saying 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key,' which tells the agent how to use the tool's output. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.

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