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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the side effects (enquiry submitted, email with a click-through link, details shared with up to three providers who contact the person directly), the gating condition (no provider sees it before the person clicks), and the exact meaning of consent. This is far beyond what the schema conveys.

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 operationally critical distinction ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') is front-loaded, and the two steps are cleanly ordered. The block is dense and the verbatim consent sentence is long, but that text is required for the consent parameter to be meaningful, so most of the length earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description compensates by naming the step 1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the step 2 outcome (submission plus a click-to-confirm email). For a nested-parameter, two-phase tool with no annotations, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 would be 3, but the description adds sequencing semantics the schema cannot express: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and the confirmation token is only supplied in the second call 'after the person has approved the summary'. It does not add format details for the answers values themselves.

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 Cyprus Non-Dom Calculator') and immediately disambiguates it from what an agent might assume ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). Combined with the title's mention of human providers, an agent can distinguish this from calculate, enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe without opening any schema.

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 gives explicit when-to-use instructions for two distinct invocation modes: Step 1 'call with the answers ... and consent=true', Step 2 'only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token'. It also names the sibling tool (enquiry_fields) as the source of field keys and states the pre-condition for step 2 (person approval), leaving nothing to inference.

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