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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses the two-step flow, validation summary, consent requirement, confirmation token, and post-submission email verification before providers see the enquiry. It does not cover failure modes, session prerequisites, or what happens if consent is false, leaving minor gaps for a multi-step submission tool.

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 purpose and a key distinction, then structured into clear Step 1 and Step 2 instructions. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no redundancy, despite the inherent complexity of a two-step process.

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 the absence of an output schema and the multi-step behavior, the description is nearly complete: it explains the validation response, consent line, token, and email confirmation. It could mention session prerequisites or error handling, but for the core behavior it is sufficient.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and by showing how the confirmation token from step 1 is used in step 2, clarifying the intended workflow.

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 Issafu') and immediately distinguishes it from alternatives ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from purchase/quote siblings without requiring schema inspection.

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?

It provides explicit step-by-step guidance: Step 1 requires answers and consent=true and returns a summary, consent line, and token; Step 2 is only after the person agrees, with the same answers, consent=true, and the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, and clearly states when not to use it (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote).

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