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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two-step submission process, validation and summary return, the token requirement, the email link that must be clicked, and that providers only see the enquiry after that click. It also defines consent with the exact consent line.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: it explains the two-step flow, the exact consent wording, the user-facing display requirement, and the email confirmation step. The structure is organized and front-loads the most important 'not a purchase' caveat before diving into steps.

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 multi-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It specifies inputs, intermediate outputs, the condition for step 2, the consent line, and the post-submission email flow. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly in both steps.

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?

Although the schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds essential meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must match the specified agreement text, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1 after approval. This clarifies the relationship between parameters that the schema alone does not convey.

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 names a specific action (submits an enquiry) and a specific target (Malta Payroll Calculator), and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also frames the two-step nature, which differentiates it from the sibling tools like calculate and enquiry_fields.

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 a precise when-to-use protocol: first call with answers and consent, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also explains the consent condition and the email verification step, leaving little ambiguity about how to use the tool correctly.

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