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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step stateful flow, validation and token return, the exact consent wording, the email notification, and the requirement to click a link before any provider sees the enquiry. This is rich and transparent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. The key non-purchase clarification is front-loaded, and the two-step workflow is clearly structured with numbered steps. No filler or redundant repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the tool's two-step stateful complexity, absence of annotations, and lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers consent text, token handling, email link requirement, and even points to the sibling enquiry_fields tool for key definitions. Nothing essential 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, that consent must be true only with the exact consent statement, and that the confirmation token is only needed in Step 2. This clarifies the optional parameter's role far better than 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Compare Answering') and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling comparison tools and leaves no ambiguity about the operation.

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 step-by-step usage: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 with the confirmation token after the person approves. It also references enquiry_fields for the field keys, giving the agent a clear path to correct invocation and sequencing.

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