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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the two-step validation flow, the required consent wording, the return of a summary and confirmation token, the subsequent email with a link, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. It also clarifies that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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 for a two-step interaction. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the important 'not a purchase' caveat, then structured clearly with Step 1 and Step 2. There is no filler or redundancy beyond reinforcing the exact consent text.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains both the step-1 result (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the step-2 outcome (submission and email with a link). It also covers validation, consent requirements, and the human approval gate, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly across 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage semantics by explaining that answers must use field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true with a specific meaning, and that the confirmation token comes from step 1 and is only used after the person approves. This goes beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Submits an enquiry to Malta Property Tax') and a clear resource, while explicitly clarifying what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by describing a submit flow rather than a describe/fields operation.

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 an explicit, step-by-step procedure: call first with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again only after agreement with the confirmation token. It does not explicitly route to alternatives like enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields, but it does reference enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, which provides useful context.

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