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 well: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/confirmation token, that step 2 actually submits, that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and that consent means up to three advisers will contact the person directly. No annotation contradiction, and it adds the consent semantics and data-flow that no structured field supplies.

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 most important distinction (not a purchase) and organized as Step 1 / Step 2, which matches the call flow. The full consent text is quoted verbatim in both the description and the consent param schema, a small redundancy, but every other sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns — and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token). Combined with the consent definition, email verification flow, and two-step gating, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 a 3 is the floor, but the description goes further: it ties 'answers' to keys from enquiry_fields, states consent must be true, and explains that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and required only on the second call. That adds sequencing semantics the schema alone doesn't convey.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (submit an enquiry to Sellable Score) and immediately draws the boundary that it is 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This lets an agent distinguish it from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol with the triggering condition for each call: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only after the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also states the dependency on enquiry_fields for the field keys, so the ordering of sibling calls is unambiguous.

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