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 the validate-then-submit mutation flow, the returned artifacts (summary, consent line, token), the double opt-in email-link requirement before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent meaning. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation.

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 scope disclaimer, then clearly segmented Step 1 / Step 2 with no wasted framing. It loses a point only because the consent string is repeated verbatim from the schema and the sentences are dense.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description compensates by naming what each step returns and the downstream email/click flow. With a nested answers object and a token-gated second call, all the sequencing an agent needs is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real semantics beyond it: 'answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields' links to the sibling field-definition tool, and the confirmation token is tied to step-1 output obtained 'after the person has approved the summary'. It stops short of enumerating field types, which the schema handles.

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 Miniature Paints Compare') and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which separates it from the dataset_* siblings and from any quote/purchase tool. An agent can identify the tool's purpose and boundaries 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 with answers+consent to validate, Step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token. It names the conditions that select each call and what must be shown to the user between them, leaving no routing inference.

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