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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so comprehensively. It discloses the two-step behavior, validation and summary generation, the confirmation token, the email link requirement, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. It also explicitly negates purchase and quote guarantees, which is valuable safety context.

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 long but every sentence carries necessary operational or safety information. It front-loads the most important caveats ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), then walks through the two steps in a clear, linear, and scannable way. No filler wording is present.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: the step sequence, the required consent wording, the confirmation token flow, the return values at each stage, and the downstream email requirement. There is no missing behavioral or workflow context for safe use.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical meaning beyond the schema: it explains the confirmation token's role across the two steps, requires the same answers to be reused, and defines consent as the person having read and agreed to the specific text. This transforms the schema fields from mere names into a usable workflow.

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 states a specific verb ('submits an enquiry') and the target resource ('Accountancy Practice Valuation'), and prominently clarifies that this is NOT a purchase or guaranteed quote. This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose from related enquiry tools and leaves no ambiguity about what it accomplishes.

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 provides an explicit two-step invocation protocol: Step 1 with answers and consent=true to obtain a summary and confirmation token, then Step 2 only after person approval with the same answers plus the token. It defines the consent condition verbatim and explains the consequence of consent, leaving no doubt about when and how to call the tool.

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