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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses the two-step validation and submission flow, the requirement to show the person the summary and consent line, the need for a confirmation token, and that a provider sees nothing until the person clicks an email link. It also explains the exact meaning of consent.

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, covering purpose, exclusions, a two-step procedure, and the quoted consent text. It is front-loaded with the core action and what it is not, and the steps are clearly labeled.

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 sensitive two-step tool with human providers and no output schema, this description is remarkably complete. It explains the full workflow, the consent gate, the confirmation token handoff, and the email-link privacy step, leaving no obvious gap that an agent needs to guess before calling it correctly.

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% and already documents answers, consent, and confirmation. The description adds value by explaining how they interlock: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields, consent must be true, and confirmation is the Step 1 token reused in Step 2. This goes beyond the schema's isolated parameter 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Malta Stamp Duty') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly distinguishes submit_enquiry from the sibling calculate and describe tools without needing to open schemas.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: it is for submitting an enquiry after gathering answers, in a two-step process with explicit conditions for Step 1 and Step 2. It also gives a when-not hint ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like enquiry_describe.

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