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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 is validation-only, that step 2 triggers an email with a link the person must click before any provider sees the data, that up to three advisers may receive contact details, and that the person is notified per firm and can stop further sharing. These are exactly the side effects and consent prerequisites an agent must know before writing.

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 framing ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and the step sequence is easy to follow. It loses a point because the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim in the description and again in the schema's consent field, which is redundant bulk.

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 by stating what step 1 returns (a summary, the consent line, a confirmation token) and what step 2 produces. For a stateful, consent-gated submission tool, an agent has everything needed to call it 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 adds cross-call meaning the schema cannot express: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 after approval. That relational context is genuinely beyond the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Accounting Firm Value') and immediately negates the two most likely misclassifications ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly distinguishable from the compare_* and enquiry_* siblings, which describe/compare rather than submit.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 only after the person agrees and only with the confirmation token. The conditional gating ('only if the person agrees') and the required human-visible actions are spelled out, 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.