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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the two-step flow, the consent line that must be shown to the user, the email with a link that must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and the fact that it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and prerequisites, with no contradiction.

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 detailed but well-organized, with clear step numbering and front-loaded key warnings (NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote). Each sentence serves a purpose; while longer than typical, the complexity of a two-step consent-driven process justifies the length. It is structured logically, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two steps, consent, email verification, provider visibility), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 does, and the post-submission email flow. Even without an output schema, the agent knows exactly what to expect at each stage, leaving no gaps.

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. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, clarifies the consent parameter by quoting the exact consent line, and describes the confirmation token as the result of step 1. This enriches the parameter meaning significantly, hence a 4.

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 it submits an enquiry to Malta Crypto Licence, explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or quote, and differentiates from sibling tools (enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields) by describing the submission action. The two-step nature and consent requirement are also stated, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides explicit step-by-step instructions for both steps of the process, including when to call the tool (step 1 to validate, step 2 only after user agreement) and the requirement for consent and the confirmation token. It also clarifies that it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, setting expectations. Alternatives are not mentioned, but the siblings are clearly different tools for describing and listing fields, so the usage context is unambiguous.

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