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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is submitted until step 2, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, that up to three providers receive the details, and the exact consent scope. This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 crucial 'not a purchase' disambiguation and then walks the two steps in order, so it is easy to scan. It loses a point for re-quoting the full consent sentence verbatim, which is already present in the schema's consent description and is a sizable block of duplicated text.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 produces (submission plus a verification email), which is exactly what an agent needs to chain the calls. For a nested-object, multi-step tool this is complete enough to act on.

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 goes further by explaining how the three parameters interlock across the two calls — which values belong to step 1 versus step 2, where the answer keys come from (enquiry_fields), and that consent=true is required in both calls. That workflow-level meaning is not in the schema field descriptions.

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 Redundancy Calculator Ireland') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the sibling it depends on ('field key from enquiry_fields'), letting an agent place it among calculate/enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe without opening a 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 + consent=true, step 2 only after the person approves, with the confirmation token. The gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the required ordering are spelled out, 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.