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 validation behavior, the exact return artifacts of step 1 (summary, consent line, token), the downstream consequence (an email link the person must click before any provider sees the enquiry), and the precise scope of consent (up to three firms, name disclosure per firm, ability to stop). This is unusually rich disclosure of consent, gating, and side effects.

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 step structure is front-loaded and every sentence is operational. The verbatim consent sentence is long and duplicates the schema's consent description, so there is some redundancy, but the content is load-bearing in a consent-sensitive flow.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does, for both steps (step 1: summary, consent line, token; step 2: submitted enquiry plus confirmation email link). For a nested-object, two-phase, consent-gated tool, an agent has everything it needs to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: it explains that answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields' (routing the agent to the sibling tool), that consent=true is tied to a specific agreement, and that confirmation is the step-1 token to be supplied only after human approval.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to FBA Forwarders') and immediately draws the boundary that matters most: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes it from transaction-like expectations and from siblings such as enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe without needing to open a 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate and obtain a token; Step 2 only 'if the person agrees,' resubmitting with the token. The gating condition and the sequencing are spelled out, 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.