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 does so: it discloses the validation-then-submit two-call protocol, the returned artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the double-opt-in email link gate before any provider sees data, and the downstream consequence (contact details sent to up to three EOR providers, with opt-out).

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 most decision-critical fact (not a purchase) and then procedurally ordered as Step 1/Step 2. Dense and nearly waste-free, though the verbatim consent quotation makes it longer than strictly needed for agent comprehension.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying exactly what step 1 returns and what step 2 does, including the email confirmation gate. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly across two calls 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 real value beyond the schema: it explains that 'consent' must be true and what agreeing entails, and that 'confirmation' comes from step 1 only after the person approves the summary. The one gap is that answer-key sourcing is delegated to the sibling tool rather than stated inline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to EOR Compass') and immediately bounds it with exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The two-step nature is named in the title and elaborated in the body, so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only enquiry_* siblings.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, show the summary and consent line; Step 2 only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It also names enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, so the agent knows where to get the input shape.

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