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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the non-purchase/non-quote nature, that step 1 is validation-only, that step 2 triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees the data, and it spells out exactly what consent authorizes (up to three Maltese notaries, direct contact, stop rights). This is far richer than a bare mutation description.

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 two-step flow is front-loaded and sequenced clearly. The verbatim consent sentence is duplicated from the schema's consent description, which is slight redundancy, but it serves the agent that must show the consent line to the person, so it largely earns its place.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the full lifecycle: input keying (from enquiry_fields), validation response contents (summary, consent line, token), the consent gate, submission, and the email-confirmation dependency. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented, but the description adds the temporal relationship between fields that the schema cannot convey — 'confirmation' only applies on the second call, and 'consent' is required on both. It adds workflow-level meaning beyond the flat per-field 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Malta Stamp Duty') and immediately contrasts it with what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which cleanly separates it from calculate/enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe siblings. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 call with answers+consent=true to validate and obtain a token; Step 2 only if the person agrees, re-call with the same answers, consent, and the token. The condition selecting each call is stated outright, 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.