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 that this is not a purchase, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission requires a second call, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. These are material behavioral traits an agent could not otherwise know.

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?

Long but front-loaded, with the crucial "not a purchase" caveat first and the steps sequenced logically. The closing consent quote mildly duplicates the consent field's schema description, but it is central to correct invocation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns — and it does, naming the summary, consent line and confirmation token. Combined with the two-step gate and email-click requirement, an agent has everything needed to call 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and confirmation is the step-1 token used only after approval. It explains the inter-parameter flow rather than restating types.

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 verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Medicare Plan Comparison") and immediately disambiguates scope with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." An agent can distinguish this from the sibling enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe tools, which it references for input keys.

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?

It lays out an explicit two-step procedure: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, Step 2 only if the person agrees, re-calling with the confirmation token. The condition selecting each step and the dependency on enquiry_fields for answer keys are spelled out rather than inferred.

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