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-first-then-confirm two-call flow, that Step 1 returns a summary, consent line and token, that the enquiry is not visible to providers until the person clicks an email link, and what consent literally means. It also explicitly negates the purchase/quote expectations an agent might otherwise assume.

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 negation and the two-step structure, and every clause is operative (validation, token, email gate, consent wording). It is dense and slightly run-on with nested quoting of the consent line, but no sentence is filler.

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?

Three parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and the description compensates by describing the Step 1 return payload and the end-to-end flow through email verification. An agent has everything needed to sequence the two calls and set consent 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; the description goes further by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (pointing at the sibling that supplies valid keys) and that the confirmation token must accompany the same answers from Step 1. It stops short of type or validation-rule detail, which the schema carries.

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 PropFirmPicker") and immediately disambiguates with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote". Together with the title's "two steps" framing, an agent can distinguish this from sibling enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe 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?

It prescribes exactly when to call: Step 1 with answers + consent=true for validation, Step 2 only after the person agrees, resubmitting the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also tells the agent to show the summary and consent line to the person before proceeding, which is the decision gate an alternate tool would not have.

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