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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the validate-then-confirm flow, the returned summary/consent line/token, the email-activation gate ('link they must click before any provider sees it'), and the precise scope of consent (up to three notaries, ability to stop further sharing). This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a write tool.

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?

Front-loads the critical framing ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') before the mechanical steps, and every sentence carries procedural or legal weight. The consent sentence is long and dense but is quoted verbatim for accuracy, so it earns its length.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description explains what Step 1 returns and the downstream email activation, so an agent knows both the inputs and the expected flow. Nothing needed to invoke either step correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it ties 'answers' to the field keys from the enquiry_fields sibling, explains the confirmation token originates from Step 1, and elaborates what consent=true asserts.

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 Property Tax') and immediately disambiguates intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step contract further distinguishes it from the read-only sibling tools enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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?

Explicit when-to-call sequencing: Step 1 requires answers plus consent=true, Step 2 requires the confirmation token and only proceeds 'if the person agrees'. It also names the condition that decides between the two calls, 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.