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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only retrieval of field metadata and describes the content in detail, but it does not explicitly state that the operation has no side effects, requires no authentication, or how the result is structured. This is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 sentences with no waste. The first sentence packs in the full scope and content of the response, and the second provides a clear workflow connection to submit_enquiry. Every sentence earns its place and the key 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 zero-parameter metadata tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the agent will receive and how to use it downstream. It could be more explicit about the exact return shape (array vs. object), but the enumerated fields and the submit_enquiry linkage make it largely complete.

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 and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds a useful semantic link by noting that answers should be keyed by the returned field keys, even though there are no parameters to document.

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 the specific resource (Right to Work Wizard enquiry fields) and enumerates the exact content returned: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'retrieve', but the meaning is clear and it differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by pointing to how answers should be keyed.

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 actionable usage guidance by explaining how the returned field keys should be used when calling submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with sibling tools like enquiry_describe or checker_*, so the 'when to use vs alternatives' guidance is partial rather than complete.

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