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 well: it discloses validation on step 1, the returned summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers a verification email whose link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and the exact scope of consent (up to three advisors, named as they receive details, stoppable). It omits failure/retry behavior and whether state persists between the two calls, which is why it is not a 5.

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-loads the most decision-relevant caveat ('NOT a purchase') and structures the rest as numbered steps, which suits a two-phase workflow. The verbatim consent sentence is duplicated from the schema, which is a small redundancy but defensible since consent semantics are the crux of the tool.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema tool this is complete: it describes the return of step 1, the side effects of step 2 (email verification, provider contact), and the consent contract. An agent has everything needed to run both phases 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining that answers are keyed by the field keys returned from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is only supplied on the second call after approval, clarifying the otherwise ambiguous optional parameter.

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 M&A Advisor Fees') and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. An agent can distinguish this from the read-only siblings (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe) 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?

The two-step protocol is spelled out with explicit triggers: step 1 with answers + consent=true, then step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also states the intermediate obligation (show the person the summary and consent line), leaving nothing to inference.

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