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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and fully delivers. It discloses the two-step validation/submission behavior, the email with a click-link requirement before providers see the enquiry, the exact consent statement, and the fact that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. These behaviors go far beyond what a one-line description would offer.

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 description is front-loaded with purpose and exclusions, then proceeds through steps in logical order. Every sentence conveys a distinct piece of necessary workflow information—step 1 behavior, step 2 condition, email requirement, and consent definition—with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's two-step complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what the agent must do (show the person), when to proceed to step 2, and the post-submission email flow. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics: answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', consent must be true only when the exact consent line has been read and agreed to, and confirmation is the token from step 1 used only in the second call. This workflow-level meaning is not present in the schema alone.

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 Football Agent Index' and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also gives the two-step workflow context, making it unmistakably distinct from sibling tools such as enquiry_fields, which supplies the field keys referenced here.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-call guidance: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 only after the person agrees, using the returned confirmation token. It also points the agent to enquiry_fields for the answer keys and explains what to show the user, leaving no ambiguity about the proper invocation sequence.

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