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, the exact step-1 return payload, the two-phase commit requiring a token, the downstream side effect (contact details sent to up to three advisers/brokers who may contact the person directly), and the double-opt-in email link that must be clicked before any provider sees it.

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 critical 'NOT a purchase' framing, then cleanly divided into Step 1 and Step 2. It is long, but the length is justified by a genuinely two-phase tool; the only waste is the full consent sentence, which largely duplicates the consent parameter description in the schema.

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 and none is needed, since the description enumerates what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token). With no annotations, it compensates by covering side effects, human consent requirements, and the confirmation-email gate.

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% and every parameter is already documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining the temporal relationship between parameters: 'confirmation' is only supplied on the second call and only after the person has approved the summary, which the schema does not convey.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Own vs Charter) and immediately rules out the two most likely misreadings with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The reference to enquiry_fields for the answer keys orients the agent relative to its siblings.

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, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the returned token. It also names the prerequisite sibling call (enquiry_fields) and the human-approval gate that selects step 2.

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