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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval of field metadata, but it never explicitly states that the tool performs no mutation, what format the response takes, or whether any authentication or preconditions apply. The content is well specified, but the behavioral traits are only implicit.

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 focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the exact data points returned. The follow-up instruction about submit_enquiry adds practical value without bloat. 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 zero-parameter, output-only metadata tool, the description is complete: it explains what the tool returns, enumerates the included attributes, and ties the output to the next step in the workflow. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit enumeration of fields.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds a useful note that the returned field keys should be used as keys when passing answers to submit_enquiry, which helps the agent understand the role of the output even though it is not a parameter of this tool.

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 identifies a specific resource ('the Workplace Recycling Rules enquiry') and enumerates exactly what fields are exposed: key, label, type, required status, help text, and allowed options. This clearly distinguishes it from a submit action like submit_enquiry and from checker tools, since it is the field-metadata listing for the enquiry.

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 clear contextual usage: it tells the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by the field key returned here. This effectively connects the tool to the submission workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended role is evident.

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