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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses that this is not a purchase, that step 1 only validates and returns a token, that the token is required for step 2, that the person gets an email requiring a click before any provider sees the enquiry, and exactly what consent authorizes (up to three firms, direct contact, per-firm notification, ability to stop further sharing). Side effects and consent semantics are fully surfaced.

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 and tightly ordered: the disclaimer, then step 1, then step 2, then the consent definition. Every sentence does work, though the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim in both the description and the consent parameter schema, which is redundant text an agent must read twice.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus a confirmation email with a required click). For a two-phase, consent-gated tool with a nested answers object, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining the lifecycle of `confirmation` (only obtained from step 1, only used after the person approves the summary) and that `answers` must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. It does not add type or format detail beyond the schema, keeping it at 4.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Freight Forwarder Finder") and immediately bounds it with explicit negatives ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like compare_options or enquiry_fields without opening any 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?

It gives precise call conditions for both steps: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 "only if the person agrees" with the confirmation token. Prerequisites are clear (field keys come from enquiry_fields), but it never explicitly routes away from the other sibling tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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