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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It specifies the returned content precisely, including the 'where there are any' qualifier for allowed options. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only query or describe any side effects, errors, or limitations, which is a modest gap for a metadata retrieval 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?

Two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence packs all return-value information, and the second delivers actionable guidance on using the result with submit_enquiry. The key content 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 no-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what an agent needs: the set of fields, their attributes, and how to use the keys with submit_enquiry. It does not explicitly state whether the output is an array or object, but this is a minor omission for such a simple listing tool.

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 input schema is empty with zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters for the description to explain, and it appropriately stays silent about them.

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 Commercial Mortgage Calculator enquiry') and enumerates the exact attributes returned (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options), making its function evident. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'lists' or 'returns' and does not 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 instruction to 'Pass answers to submit_enquiry keyed by field key' establishes a clear workflow: use this tool to learn the field keys before submitting. This is clear context for use, though it does not mention alternatives or conditions for not using this tool.

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