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: it discloses the consent semantics verbatim, the validation-only nature of step 1, that submission is gated behind an email link the person must click before any provider sees the data, and exactly what step 1 returns. This is well beyond a restatement of the name.

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 two-step framing and the critical 'not a purchase' caveat before procedural detail. It is dense and somewhat long, and the consent statement appears twice (once in prose, once quoted), which is mild redundancy rather than waste.

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 multi-step, consent-gated submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: prerequisites, the exact two-call sequence, what each call returns, and the downstream email-verification gate. No material behavior is left undisclosed.

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 fields are already documented, but the description adds flow-level meaning the schema cannot: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is the gating boolean, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and reused in step 2. That cross-parameter sequencing is genuine added value.

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 and resource (submits an enquiry to Immigration Adviser Finder) and immediately disambiguates scope: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This separates it from adjacent enquiry_* siblings by naming the exact artifact being created.

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?

Explicitly prescribes a two-step protocol: step 1 when validating, step 2 only after the person approves. It names the trigger condition for the second call ('only if the person agrees') and the required inputs for each step, leaving no inference to the agent.

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