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 the side effect (enquiry submitted, email sent with a verification link), the prerequisite for provider visibility, the return payload of step 1 (summary, consent line, token), and the exact consent meaning with quoted wording. This is well beyond a restatement of the name.

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 'NOT a purchase' disambiguation, then the two steps in order – every sentence contributes. Slightly dense as a single paragraph, and the consent sentence is quoted verbatim both here and in the schema, a minor redundancy for a reader consulting both.

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?

For a stateful two-call mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what each call returns, what to show the user, what token to carry forward, and the consent gate. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 are keyed by field key drawn from enquiry_fields (a cross-tool contract), consent=true is defined by the quoted agreement text, and confirmation is explicitly the token returned by step 1. It stops short of describing answer value formats or typing constraints.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Tide Times Compare) and immediately negates the two most likely confusions – 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step structure is named outright, so an agent can distinguish it from the read-only dataset_* and enquiry_* siblings 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 explicit conditional routing: step 1 with answers plus consent=true to validate; step 2 only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token from step 1. It also states the gating condition (person must click the emailed link before any provider sees it), so the agent knows exactly when each call is appropriate and when the flow must stop.

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