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 richly: it discloses that step 1 is a dry-run validation, that final submission emails a link the person must click before any provider sees the data, that up to three providers are chosen unilaterally, and the full consent semantics. These are exactly the side-effect and auth-adjacent behaviors an agent needs.

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-loads purpose and the two steps, and every procedural sentence earns its place for a multi-step tool. It loses a point for verbatim-repeating the long consent string already present in the schema's consent description, which is redundant text.

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 complex, irreversible-ish multi-step submission with no output schema, the description still tells the agent what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a click-to-activate link). Nothing needed to call 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 baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by tying 'answers' to the field keys from enquiry_fields and by clarifying the two-step role of consent and the confirmation token (same answers plus consent=true plus the token). This is meaningful flow semantics, though the per-field syntax is left to the schema.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Get 409A Valuation), and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also points to the sibling (enquiry_fields) that supplies the field keys, so an agent can distinguish it from the checker_* and enquiry_* tools 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?

Enumerates the exact two-step protocol: Step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, Step 2 fires only 'if the person agrees' and requires the token. It states the gating condition and what must be shown to the person between steps, 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.