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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the validate-then-confirm flow, the email with a link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. It also clarifies that step 1 validates and returns a token rather than submitting.

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?

Although longer than average, the description is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into numbered steps. Every sentence provides necessary information—consent text, token usage, and post-submission behavior—so the length is justified and no words are wasted.

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 is remarkably complete for a multi-step mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema: it defines both steps, the consent condition, the token flow, and the email link behavior. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return value of the step 2 call, though this may be unnecessary for a correctly invoked submission.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that answers are keyed from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both steps, and the confirmation token originates from step 1. This sequencing context goes beyond the individual schema property descriptions.

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 Cyprus Company Cost' — and narrows scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step behavior is front and center, making this clearly distinct from siblings 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?

Step 1 and Step 2 are spelled out explicitly, including the exact parameters for each call and the condition that step 2 happens 'only if the person agrees.' It also points to enquiry_fields for the answer keys and warns against treating the tool as a purchase or quote, preventing misuse.

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