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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently discloses what the tool exposes: every enquiry field with its properties, and it implies a read-only metadata lookup by telling the agent to pass answers to submit_enquiry separately. It does not discuss edge cases or failure modes, but for a simple field-listing tool this is adequate.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the resource and immediately lists the output attributes. Every phrase earns its place, and the instruction about submit_enquiry is a useful addition without padding.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it names the resource, enumerates all returned field attributes, and explains how to use the result with a sibling tool. No critical information is missing.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant semantic context by explaining that returned field keys are used to key answers when calling submit_enquiry, which is helpful even though no parameters need documenting.

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 Settlement Calculator enquiry') and enumerates the available attributes (key, label, type, required, help text, allowed options). It is distinguishable from siblings like calculate and submit_enquiry, though it lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'lists'.

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 context for use: it provides the field metadata needed to construct a payload for submit_enquiry, and explicitly says to pass answers keyed by field key. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is clear.

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