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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It tells the agent what the tool returns (key, label, type, required flag, help text, allowed options) and how the output should be used with submit_enquiry. It does not describe read-only guarantees or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter metadata retrieval tool the disclosure is strong.

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 efficient sentences: the first front-loads the full field-attribute list, and the second immediately tells the agent how to connect the output to the sibling submit_enquiry tool. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return content and its downstream purpose. It does not specify the exact top-level response shape (array vs object), but it provides enough detail for an agent to correctly interpret the fields and use them in submit_enquiry.

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 input schema to clarify; the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description still adds relevant semantic context by explaining that fields have keys and that those keys are the expected keys for submit_enquiry answers.

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 Pub Mortgage Calculator enquiry, and lists the specific attributes exposed. Although it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'get' or 'list', 'Every field...' makes the retrieval purpose unmistakable and distinguishes it from sibling tools such as submit_enquiry and calculator_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 second sentence gives practical usage context: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key. This implies when the tool is relevant, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over enquiry_describe or calculator_describe, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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