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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses validation behavior, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers a verification email requiring a click before any provider sees the data, that up to three firms are contacted, and the exact consent scope. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 most decision-relevant fact (it is not a purchase) followed by the numbered two-step flow. It is on the long side and re-quotes the full consent paragraph already present in the schema, a minor redundancy, but every procedural sentence earns its place.

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 two-phase mutation with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: the return artifacts of step 1, the gating token, the email verification step, and the downstream data-sharing scope. An agent has everything needed to drive both calls 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by explaining the sequencing semantics: which answers/consent go with step 1, and that the confirmation token in step 2 must come from step 1 after approval. The consent wording is duplicated verbatim from the schema, which limits it to a 4 rather than 5.

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 Nearshore Finder'), immediately scopes it with two negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), and relates it to the sibling enquiry_fields by reference. An agent can distinguish it from the compare_* and enquiry_* siblings without opening any 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 procedure: step 1 when gathering answers with consent=true, step 2 only after the person approves the returned summary, using the confirmation token. The condition that gates each call is spelled out, so nothing about when-to-call is left to inference.

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