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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an emailed link, and spells out what consent legally means. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent could not 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?

Front-loads the critical disambiguation (NOT a purchase) and structures the flow as Step 1/Step 2, which is easy to scan. The verbatim consent sentence is duplicated from the schema's consent description, costing some redundancy, but overall the length is justified by the two-step protocol.

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?

With no output schema, the description still reports what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email-verification consequence. For a nested-object, multi-step, no-annotation tool, this is as complete as an agent needs to call it correctly.

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, but the description adds real meaning: 'answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields' ties the object keys to another tool, and it specifies that 'confirmation' is the token from step 1 used only after the person approves. It stops short of documenting value formats, but the sequencing semantics exceed what the schema alone conveys.

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 Procedure Cost Checker) and immediately disambiguates from what it is not — not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote. It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, letting an agent route correctly without opening schemas.

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: call once with answers and consent=true to validate, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. The conditional gating on step 2 is stated precisely, 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.