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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the consent requirement, the two-call side-effect flow, the confirmation token, the email with a click link, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked.

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 dense but every sentence contributes: purpose, exclusions, step one, approval condition, step two, and post-submission behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before the procedural detail.

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?

Given the two-step consent flow and the absence of an output schema, this description is complete enough for correct invocation. It explains what step one returns, what step two requires, the consent wording, the email action, and the provider visibility condition.

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. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining that answers must come keyed from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true in both calls, and that the confirmation token is produced by step one and used to complete submission.

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 concrete action: submits an enquiry to Notice Period Ireland, and immediately clarifies what it is not (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote). The title reinforces the two-step submission to human providers, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the sibling describe/calculate/fields 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 an explicit two-step calling protocol: first validate and obtain a token, then resubmit only after the person agrees. It also states when not to use the tool (not a purchase or quote) and references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, so the agent knows how this tool fits with its siblings.

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