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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states exactly what the tool returns (key, label, type, required, help text, options) and that the output is meant to inform submit_enquiry calls. It does not explicitly say it is read-only or non-mutating, but as a zero-parameter metadata retrieval, the behavior is transparent enough.

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 tight sentences. The first front-loads the resource and lists the returned attributes; the second gives a cross-reference to submit_enquiry. No filler or redundancy, and every clause earns its place.

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, this description is complete: it tells the agent what fields are returned and how to use them with submit_enquiry. The lack of formatting details is acceptable because the caller only needs the keys and labels. The relationship to sibling tools is sufficiently clear through context.

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 input parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no input parameter details because none exist, but it usefully references the field key as the output-to-input contract for submit_enquiry, which aids correct downstream invocation.

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 Revalidation Tracker enquiry, and enumerates the exact attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It distinguishes itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be keyed by field key, and the title adds context. It lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns', so it is slightly less direct than ideal.

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 a workflow: call this tool to learn the field keys, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by those keys. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs enquiry_describe or the checker tools, and gives no exclusion criteria. The pointer to submit_enquiry is helpful and provides some situational guidance.

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