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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that step 1 only validates, that step 2 submits the enquiry, that an email with a clickable link is sent, and that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks. It also clarifies the exact meaning of consent, so there is no ambiguity about 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 description is long enough to cover a genuinely two-step flow, but every sentence is functional. It front-loads the core purpose and the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then structures step 1 and step 2 clearly. The consent line is repeated because the agent needs it verbatim to show the person.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates: it explains return values from step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the trigger of the email in step 2, and the condition under which providers see the enquiry. Nothing essential for correctly invoking the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents answers, consent, and confirmation. The description adds workflow-level meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true must reflect the quoted agreement, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This exceeds the baseline of relying on schema alone, though it partly restates schema content.

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 Freight Forwarder Finder', and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This clearly separates it from comparison and enquiry-description sibling tools, so an agent can tell what this tool is for and what it is not.

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 two-step usage protocol is explicit: Step 1 calls with answers and consent=true to obtain a confirmation token; Step 2 calls again only if the person agrees, with the same answers, consent=true, and the token. It also tells the agent to show the person the summary and consent line before proceeding, which is strong when-to-use guidance.

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