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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that Step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until Step 2, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and the exact scope of consent (up to three providers, chosen by the service, with opt-out). This is genuine behavioral context beyond the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the critical distinction (not a purchase) and organized as a clear Step 1/Step 2 sequence. The long verbatim consent quote duplicates the schema's consent description, which is the only real redundancy, but it is central to the tool's semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating exactly what Step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token). For a two-step, mutation-like, consent-gated tool with a nested answers object, all decision-relevant information is present.

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 baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning: 'answers' must be keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, 'consent' is tied to a specific agreement text, and 'confirmation' is explicitly the token returned from Step 1 (tying the parameter to a prior call, which the schema does not state).

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 concrete verb+resource (submits an enquiry to Answering Service Compare) and immediately disambiguates from siblings by ruling out what it is not: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step flow is named and differentiated from the read-only compare_*/enquiry_fields tools.

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 when-to-use and, unusually, an explicit ordering rule: Step 1 with answers+consent, then Step 2 only if the person agrees and with the returned token. It also names the source of field keys (enquiry_fields), routing the agent to the right sibling before calling.

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