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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission requires a click-through email before any provider sees the data, that up to three providers are chosen by Cheap 409A, and that the person can stop further distribution. It also embeds the exact consent text so the agent understands what consent=true means.

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-loads the critical scoping ('NOT a purchase') and then walks the steps in order; every sentence carries procedural weight. It runs long, and the full consent quote is partly duplicated in the schema's consent description, which is the only minor redundancy.

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, consent-gated submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full call sequence, what each phase returns, the human-in-the-loop requirement, and the downstream email-verification step. 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it ties 'answers' to enquiry_fields keys, explains that 'confirmation' is the token from step 1 only usable after the person approves the summary, and defines consent=true as a specific agreed statement. This sequencing context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Cheap 409A') and immediately scopes what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also cross-references the relevant sibling by telling the agent answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', so it is distinguishable from the compare_* and enquiry_* tools without opening a schema.

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 with the condition that gates the second call ('only if the person agrees'), and specifies exactly which arguments each step takes. The when-to-use and the sequencing relative to step 1 vs step 2 are fully spelled out.

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