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 validation behavior, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token without submitting, that submission triggers an email the recipient must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and that contact details go to up to three advisers. The exact consent wording and its consequences (named firms, ability to stop) are spelled out.

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-loaded with the highest-value disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') and organized as step 1 / step 2, which is easy to scan. It loses a little tightness by quoting the full consent sentence, which already appears verbatim in the schema's consent parameter description.

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 cover return values — and it does, naming the summary, consent line and confirmation token. Combined with the two-step flow, consent semantics, and the email double opt-in, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly and safely.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-tool meaning by explaining that answers are keyed by field keys coming from the enquiry_fields tool and by tying the confirmation token to the step-1 approval gate. That is genuine semantic value beyond the schema's own 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to MiCA Requirements') and immediately disambiguates what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also names the sibling (enquiry_fields) that supplies the field keys, so an agent can place it among the checker_*/enquiry_* siblings 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, show the summary and consent line to the person; step 2 only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It states the gating condition ('only if the person agrees') that selects the second call, 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.