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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, and it does so by spelling out the shape of the returned records (field attributes and allowed options). It implicitly frames the tool as a read-only discovery step paired with submit_enquiry. It omits any statement about auth, caching, or errors, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Three short sentences: return contents first, then the consumption instruction, then the parameter note. No filler, and the most important 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 one-parameter, read-only metadata tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents, the calling pattern, and the parameter's effect. Nothing an agent needs in order to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter has an enum, so the schema already documents 'form'. The description still adds meaning by explaining that form selects a guide's own form for a different reader and that omitting it yields the site's main form — practical semantics beyond the schema text.

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 a specific resource (the Recruitment Agency Fees enquiry's fields) and enumerates exactly what it returns: key, label, type, required flag, help text and allowed options. It is clearly distinguishable from submit_enquiry, which it references. The verb is implicit (a lookup/list), and sibling enquiry_describe is never mentioned, so it stops short of a 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?

It gives concrete downstream guidance: pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key, and omit the form parameter for the site's main form. That establishes clear context for calling it and how its output is consumed. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over enquiry_describe, so no exclusions are covered.

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