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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals the two-step stateful flow, consent requirements, that the person receives an email with a link they must click, and that providers only see the enquiry after that click. It also warns that this is not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote, preventing false expectations.

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 well-structured with Step 1 and Step 2, front-loading the most important caveats ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and then providing sequential instructions. Every sentence adds necessary operational detail; no fluff or repetition. The length is justified by the complexity of the two-step flow.

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?

The description fully explains the return values of step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the required consent action, and the email-link behavior after submission. It even explains the condition under which the confirmation token is used in step 2. For a tool with no output schema and human-provider involvement, this coverage is complete.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, gives the exact consent text that must be agreed to, and specifies that confirmation is the token from step 1 after the person approves the summary. This clarifies the relationship between parameters and the two-step process.

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 Crypto AML Policy') and immediately clarifies what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also describes the two-step nature in the title and the body, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 call with answers and consent, show the summary and consent line, then Step 2 call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It clearly states when to proceed and what to do with the output, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or mention when not to use this tool.

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