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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation flow, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that step 2 actually submits and triggers an email link the person must click before any provider sees it, and the exact consent text. This covers side effects, gating, and post-submission behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions, then uses explicit 'Step 1:' and 'Step 2:' markers to organize the flow. It is dense but every sentence adds necessary procedural or consent information; a slightly more scannable layout would improve it, but there is no fluff.

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?

Given a complex two-step, consent-gated submission with no annotations and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains both calls, the required consent text, the confirmation token, and the post-submission email verification. No critical agent-facing behavior is omitted.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'answers' must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that 'consent' must be true only after the person has read and agreed to the quoted statement, and that 'confirmation' is the token from step 1 used only after approval. This workflow context exceeds what the schema descriptions provide.

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 Immigration Adviser Finder'. It immediately distinguishes the action from a purchase or guaranteed quote, and ties the 'answers' input to 'field key from enquiry_fields', which differentiates it from the sibling enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe tools. An agent can identify this as the final submission step 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?

Explicit when-to-use instructions are given: Step 1 with answers and consent=true to validate and get a token; Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token. It also excludes misuse by stating 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' and explains the consent condition that gates both calls.

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