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 conveys that the tool returns the enquiry's fields and their properties, and it hints at downstream behavior via submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe side effects, but the described behavior is consistent and sufficiently clear for this simple tool.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds a practical usage hint. Every clause earns its place and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what the returned fields will include: key, label, type, required flag, help text, and allowed options. It also links to submit_enquiry. It is slightly spare on when to use this versus enquiry_describe, but it is complete enough for the agent to call it correctly.

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 the schema is fully covered by an empty properties object, so there is nothing for the description to add. The baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 ('Tax Investigation Cost enquiry') and the outcome (every field with its metadata), and it differentiates itself from submit_enquiry by noting that answers should be keyed by field key. However, it does not explicitly distinguish 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 concrete usage guidance: retrieve the fields, then pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by the field keys. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use wording or mention of the alternative enquiry_describe, but the workflow context is clear enough.

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