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 richly: it discloses the non-purchase/non-quote nature, the validation-then-confirm sequence, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording.

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?

Dense but front-loaded, opening with the critical 'NOT a purchase' framing before the procedural steps. It is long and repeats the consent sentence already present in the schema, which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 two-phase mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything needed: both call shapes, the returned token, the consent requirement, and the downstream email-confirmation gate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is only supplied on the second call after approval — usage context the schema cannot express.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Bags That Pay), and immediately negates the common confusions — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote. It also names a sibling concept (enquiry_fields) as the source of field keys, so an agent can route correctly.

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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-step flow: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, step 2 only after the person agrees, adding the confirmation token from step 1. It states the exact preconditions for each call and what must be shown to the person between them.

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