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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the returned artifacts, the email confirmation link that gates provider visibility, and the exact meaning of consent. It also clarifies that no provider sees the enquiry until the person clicks the email link.

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 front-loaded with the key distinction (not a purchase), then follows a clear stepwise structure. Every sentence earns its place by explaining validation, consent, confirmation, and the email gate. The quoted consent line is necessary for correct usage.

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?

This is a complex, multi-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both process and returns. It does so completely: it describes the validation response, the confirmation token, the second submission call, and the email verification step. Nothing material for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds workflow meaning beyond the schema. It explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true and what it means, and that confirmation is the token from step 1 after the person approves the summary. The added context is meaningful, though the schema already documents the parameters well.

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 names the specific action and resource: submitting an enquiry to Business Worth Calculator. It immediately scopes the behavior by clarifying that this is NOT a purchase and NOT a guaranteed quote, which distinguishes it from transactional or quote-generation expectations. Combined with the title's mention of human providers, an agent can clearly tell what this tool does.

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 explicit two-step instructions: Step 1 validates answers with consent=true and returns a summary, consent line, and token; Step 2 is only called if the person agrees and includes the token. It states when not to proceed and the condition that selects the second call. This leaves little room for misuse.

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