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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers. It discloses that the first call only validates and returns a summary/token, the second call actually submits, an email with a click link is required before providers see the enquiry, and consent has a specific legal meaning. This level of transparency exceeds typical tool definitions.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering a genuinely complex two-step flow, consent wording, and post-submission behavior. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses clear 'Step 1'/'Step 2' markers despite being a single paragraph. Slight density prevents a 5, but it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key flows: validation returns summary/consent/token, final submission triggers an email link, and consent has an exact definition. It does not detail error handling for invalid answers or a failed confirmation token, but it does say 'validates', implying feedback. Overall, an agent can execute the intended protocol correctly.

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 the schema descriptions cover the parameters, the description adds critical operational meaning: confirmation is not just a string but the token from step 1, answers must be keyed by field key, and consent must be true only after the exact consent statement is read. This transforms the schema from a static type definition into a usable protocol.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Crypto Licence Costs' and immediately clarifies what it is NOT (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). The two-step nature and the distinction from siblings like enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields make the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly sequences the two calls: first validate with answers and consent=true to get a summary and confirmation token, then call again with the same answers plus token only after the person agrees. It also states the condition for consent and the alternative of not submitting, effectively telling an agent when to proceed and when not to.

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