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: it discloses the validate-then-confirm lifecycle, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry is only submitted on step 2, and the downstream consequence (email with a link that must be clicked before any provider sees it, details going to up to three M&A advisers). It also spells out the exact meaning of consent rather than treating the flag as self-explanatory.

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 critical disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and the two steps are ordered clearly, so the structure is good. It loses a point for re-quoting the full consent sentence verbatim, which the schema already contains, making the single paragraph denser than it needs to be.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates fully by describing what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after submission. Combined with the nested-answers format and the pointer to enquiry_fields, an agent has everything needed to execute both steps 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds semantics: it explains that answers are keyed by the field key obtained from enquiry_fields, that consent must only be true once the person has read and agreed, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and is only supplied on the second call. That sequencing meaning is not derivable from the bare schema.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Accountancy Practice Valuation') and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also ties itself to the sibling enquiry_fields by naming the field-key source for the answers, so an agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without opening schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate and get a token; step 2 only after the person agrees, with the same answers plus the token. The gate condition ('only if the person agrees') and what the agent must surface to the user (summary and consent line) are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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