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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: validation-then-summary behavior, the confirmation-token round trip, the double-consent requirement, and the crucial downstream fact that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data. It also spells out what consent actually means, which is the irreversible-action disclosure 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-loaded with purpose and the two negations, then the steps in order — a good structure for a longish description. It loses a point because the consent wording is quoted verbatim and duplicated from the consent parameter's schema description, and the paragraph is a single dense block rather than scannable steps.

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, but the description compensates by naming exactly what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 triggers (submission plus a verification email). For a stateful, consent-sensitive tool, nothing an agent needs 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, and the description genuinely adds meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only for that specific wording, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and used only on the second call. The one small gap is that it never states what to do if a field key is invalid or an answer is missing.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Insurance by Profession') and immediately negates the two most likely misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also names the sibling tool enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so an agent can place it against its siblings 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the exact gating condition for each call: step 1 with answers+consent=true, step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also states what must be shown to the person between steps, which is guidance, not just description.

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