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 validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an emailed link, and that details go to up to three providers. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a mutation 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then the two steps in order. The long embedded consent quotation is bulky but is the actual text the agent must present, so it earns its place; minor redundancy in repeating consent=true across both 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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a link gating provider visibility). For a nested-answer, multi-step tool, this is complete enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by tying parameters to the flow: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true in both steps, and confirmation is the token returned by step 1. It stops short of describing answer value types or required fields, which the schema covers.

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 Long Service Leave Calculator) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which separates it from calculate and the describe siblings. The two-step nature is made explicit up front.

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 explicit sequencing: Step 1 call with answers and consent=true to validate; Step 2 only if the person agrees, call again with the confirmation token. It also names the prerequisite that consent must reflect the person having read and agreed to the quoted text. Nothing about when to invoke each step is left to inference.

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