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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that the first call only validates and returns a summary, consent line, and token, while the second call actually submits the enquiry and triggers an email requiring the recipient to click a link. The exact consent wording is quoted, making the behavioral contract unambiguous.

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 core purpose and exclusions, then structured into Step 1 and Step 2. Despite the length, every sentence earns its place by explaining a necessary part of the workflow, and the exact consent line is included verbatim rather than paraphrased.

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?

This is a complex two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, but the description provides almost everything an agent needs: the step sequence, the returned summary/token, the confirmation flow, the email-link prerequisite, and the source of answer keys. The only minor omission is the explicit return value of the second call, but the outcome ('enquiry is then submitted') is clear enough.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is high. The description adds useful context by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that the confirmation token comes from step 1, and that the second call must reuse the same answers. This goes beyond the schema without being excessive.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Submits an enquiry to Malta Company Cost' and immediately distinguishes it from a purchase or a guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is also made explicit, so the tool is easy to tell apart from the sibling enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields tools.

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 description gives explicit step-by-step guidance: first call with answers and consent=true, then a second call only after the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also says what the tool is NOT for ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references the correct source of answer keys from enquiry_fields, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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