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 richly: it discloses validation behaviour, the returned summary/consent line/token, that submission requires a second call, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent text. This is exactly the behavioural context an agent needs for an irreversible submit.

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 flow is dense and runs long, but it is front-loaded with the critical negative framing and cleanly segmented into Step 1/Step 2. Length is justified by a genuine two-call workflow, though the embedded consent quote adds bulk.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the end user receives (email with a click-through link). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields and by spelling out that 'consent' means the person has read and agreed to the quoted statement. The confirmation token's origin (step 1 output) is also clarified beyond the schema.

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 Payroll Services Quotes') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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 protocol: Step 1 with answers and consent=true, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, passing the confirmation token. It states the condition that selects each call and what must happen between them (show the summary and consent line), leaving nothing to inference.

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