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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry is not visible to any provider until the person clicks an emailed link, and it spells out exactly what consent attests to. It stops short of failure modes — invalid answers, bad or expired tokens, duplicate submissions — which keeps it from a 5.

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 structure is front-loaded and purposeful — disclaimer, then step 1, then step 2, then the definition of consent — and no sentence is filler. However, the consent sentence is restated verbatim from the schema and the dense em-dash/semicolon chain makes the two-step flow harder to scan than a short bulleted list would.

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 3-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description supplies what is otherwise unavailable: that step 1 returns a summary, consent line, and token, and that a person-side email confirmation gates visibility. Missing are error/retry behavior and token expiry, which matter for a tool that must be called twice in sequence.

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 the schema's own descriptions already explain answers, consent, and the step-1 confirmation token almost verbatim, so the description adds little parameter meaning beyond the schema baseline. The only incremental value is tying `answers` to the sibling field-key source and to the step in which each parameter is expected.

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 rules out misinterpretation with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." It also routes to the sibling that supplies the answer keys ("keyed by field key from enquiry_fields"), so an agent can distinguish it from the enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe lookup tools without opening a 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?

It gives an explicit two-step sequence with the precise condition that gates step 2 ("only if the person agrees") and the condition that inventories the flow (show the summary and consent line first). There is no ambiguity about when to call once versus twice, or what to do when consent is absent.

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