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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers an email, that the person must click a link before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three providers. It does not state error behavior (e.g., what happens if the token is invalid or consent=false), which is the main remaining gap.

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 Step 1 / Step 2 structure is front-loaded and easy to follow, and most sentences carry load-bearing information. It is somewhat long, and the consent wording is quoted verbatim even though it is already present in the schema's consent description, which is a mild duplication.

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 multi-step, consent-gated submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything needed: the step sequence, what each call returns, the confirmation gate, and the downstream email-verification flow. An agent can execute both phases correctly from this text alone.

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 schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond it: it explains the two-phase role of 'confirmation' (only after approval), ties 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields, and spells out the exact consent scope that consent=true attests to.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Citizenship Descent Checker') and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or quote, which is the key confusion risk. It also references the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, tying itself into the tool family.

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?

It lays out an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers plus consent=true first, show the person the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. The conditional for step 2 is stated unambiguously, so an agent cannot accidentally submit prematurely.

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