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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses the validation step, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double-confirmation requirement, and crucially that the inquirer must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. It also spells out the full consent scope (up to three advisers, notification per firm, opt-out). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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?

Front-loaded with the critical non-purchase disclaimer and sequenced as Step 1/Step 2, which is easy to follow. It is long and the embedded verbatim consent text is dense, though that text is arguably load-bearing for correct consent handling.

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 mutation-style two-phase flow with no output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: sequencing, returned values at each step, the consent precondition, and the downstream email-confirmation gate. Nothing material 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true is defined against the quoted consent text, and confirmation is described as the token from step 1 after approval. It clarifies inter-call state that the schema alone does not.

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 precise verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Eligible By Descent') and immediately draws the boundary that matters most: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This clearly separates it from the read-only siblings (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe) and checker tools.

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 a concrete two-step call protocol — step 1 with answers+consent, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token — which tells the agent exactly when each call is appropriate. It does not name the sibling tools that supply inputs (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe), so routing among alternatives is only implied.

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