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: it discloses the validate-then-submit flow, the confirmation token, the consent semantics, distribution to up to three providers, the required email click before any provider sees the data, and the ability to stop further firms. These are substantive behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from 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?

Purpose and the not-a-purchase warning are front-loaded, and the two steps are ordered clearly. However, the full consent string is quoted verbatim in the description while also living in the schema's consent parameter, which is meaningful duplication in an otherwise tight block.

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 no-output-schema, no-annotation, 3-param mutation the description covers the essential flow, consent, and downstream email confirmation. It does not describe failure behavior in step 1 (e.g., validation errors or expired tokens), which is the one remaining gap given how much else it covers.

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 goes beyond it by explaining that `answers` must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and by framing `confirmation` as the token returned by step 1 after the person approves the summary — a workflow meaning the schema field alone implies but does not operationally spell out.

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 Employer CPP EI Calculator") and immediately disambiguates with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." An agent can tell this apart from calculate/calculator_describe/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?

The two-step invocation conditions are explicit and unambiguous: Step 1 with answers+consent, Step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the confirmation token. It also points at the sibling that supplies the field keys (enquiry_fields). It stops short of naming a sibling to use instead for pure description/lookup, so not a 5.

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