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 thoroughly: it discloses the summary/consent-line return, the confirmation token flow, that an email requiring a click precedes any provider seeing the enquiry, and that consent sends details to up to three providers with opt-out rights. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 description is front-loaded with the non-purchase caveat and structures the two steps clearly, but it repeats the full consent string verbatim from the schema, which is redundant length even though it is useful for the human-facing consent line.

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 mutation/enquiry-submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the complete flow: validation, returned summary and token, required reconfirmation, email-click gate, and data-sharing scope. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly across both steps is missing.

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 all three parameters — including the nested answers object and the consent text — are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the two-phase use of consent/confirmation but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 title and description state a specific verb (submit) and resource (enquiry) and immediately scope it: 'Submits an enquiry to Notice Period Australia — NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This distinguishes it from calculate/calculator_describe/enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields, which are clearly not submission tools.

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?

The description gives explicit two-step usage: Step 1 with answers+consent, show summary/consent line; Step 2 only if the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It states the gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the sequence, leaving no ambiguity about when each call is made.

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