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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scope of the data ('Every field'), the specific attributes included, and the conditional presence of allowed options. It doesn't explicitly state the return format or whether the operation is read-only, but the metadata nature of the tool makes that largely apparent.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the tool exposes, and the second provides an actionable pointer to the sibling submission tool.

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 tool, this is essentially complete. It describes the content of the returned fields and connects them to the next step in the workflow. No output schema exists, so the description itself adequately communicates what an agent will receive.

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, so the input schema already covers everything. The description adds useful context by explaining how field keys returned by this tool should be used with submit_enquiry, which goes beyond the empty schema.

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 — every field of the Notice Period Calculator enquiry — and enumerates the attributes exposed (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists,' and it does not directly differentiate itself from the sibling 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 a practical usage hint: 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key.' It does not explicitly state when to use enquiry_fields versus enquiry_describe or other siblings, leaving the choice to inference.

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