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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses validation behavior, the returned artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the fact that an email with a click-through link is sent, and that no provider sees the enquiry until that click. The precise consent wording is spelled out rather than assumed.

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 critical disambiguation, then cleanly structured as Step 1/Step 2. The quoted consent line appears alongside the schema description's copy of it, a minor redundancy, but the sentence is doing real work since the agent must display it verbatim.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates fully by enumerating what each step returns. For a two-phase, consent-gated write with nested answer objects, an agent has everything needed to execute both calls 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 value beyond it: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields (pointing at the sibling that supplies the keys), consent is tied to a specific agreement, and confirmation is defined as the token returned in Step 1.

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 RMMCompare') and immediately draws the boundary that matters most: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' Among the enquiry_* siblings, only this one performs the actual submission, and the two-step framing makes that unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly routes the caller: Step 1 with answers+consent, then Step 2 only after the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also describes the human-in-the-loop prerequisite (show summary and consent line, wait for agreement) rather than leaving sequencing to inference.

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