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: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data. It also spells out what consent authorises (up to three MFSA-licensed providers, per-firm notification, opt-out) — non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer.

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 prohibitions and the two-step flow are front-loaded and every procedural sentence earns its place. The one weakness is that the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim from the consent field's schema description, a redundancy against structured data that lengthens an otherwise tight definition.

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, so the description must describe returns — and it does: step 1 returns a summary, a consent line and a confirmation token. Together with the two-step gating and the email double-opt-in, an agent has everything needed to drive the flow correctly and safely.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it tells the agent that answer keys come from enquiry_fields, and that the confirmation token must be the one returned in step 1 and supplied only after approval, which gives the ordering semantics of the fields rather than just their types.

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 Malta Company Cost') and immediately demarcates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which is the key ambiguity for a commercial-intent agent. It also points to the enquiry_fields sibling as the source of answer keys, so it is distinguishable from its siblings without opening their schemas.

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 precondition for each call: step 1 with answers+consent to validate, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. It also states the human step in between (show 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.