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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers extensively: it discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that a second call is required for actual submission, that the person receives an email link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and it prints the exact consent line the person must agree to.

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 long but every sentence earns its place given the two-step, consent-bearing, email-verification flow. Purpose and exclusions are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the protocol is sequenced clearly. The consent line is repeated from the schema, but the repetition is functional since the agent must relay it verbatim to the person.

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 high-complexity tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: step 1's return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), step 2's conditional and effect (submission plus email link requirement) are all specified. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, setting a baseline of 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, the confirmation parameter is tied to step 1's returned token, and consent is contextualized as 'true only when the person has agreed' to the quoted line. This cross-tool and cross-step context exceeds the schema alone.

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 Mail Merge PDF') and reinforces scope with exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). The title and description together clearly distinguish this from the checker_* and enquiry_* siblings, which serve different phases.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step call protocol with sequencing: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 submits only after the person agrees. It names enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, giving the agent routing context. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the conditional 'only if the person agrees' is strong usage guidance.

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