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

With no annotations, the description carries and meets the full burden: it discloses that this is not a purchase or quote, that validation happens first, that a confirmation token gates submission, and that a double-opt-in email click precedes any provider seeing the data, plus how many firms receive the contact details. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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 with the disclaimers and a clear step ordering, and every sentence carries operational weight. The verbatim consent quote duplicates text already present in the schema's consent parameter, which is the one avoidable redundancy.

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 nested-object, no-output-schema mutation-style tool, it fully covers the flow: what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what the caller must show the person, what step 2 does, and the downstream email-verification and provider-distribution model. An agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines all three parameters including the verbatim consent text and the origin of the confirmation token. The description reinforces the step-1/step-2 sequencing of answers, consent and confirmation, but adds little beyond the schema's own wording — the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('submits an enquiry to Golden Visa Calculator') and explicitly negates the two most likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling enquiry_fields by telling the agent where answer keys come from.

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 exact two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate and obtain a token, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token added. The when-to-proceed condition is explicit, with no reliance on inference.

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