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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, and that details go to up to three firms. It does not cover failure/validation-error behavior, idempotency, or auth requirements, which keeps it below 5.

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 key disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') and then ordered by step, so the critical routing information comes first. It is long, and the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent parameter, which is redundant text; that repetition is the main cost.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates well by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the person receives (email with a link gating provider visibility). Error handling and what happens if the token is missing or stale are the remaining gaps.

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 from enquiry_fields' (linking to a sibling tool), the token comes specifically from step 1, and consent is tied to an exact agreement text. It clarifies the cross-step relationship the schema cannot express.

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 Which M&A Advisor') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which cleanly separates it from the compare_* siblings and from any booking/purchase flow. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the 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 procedure with the gating condition spelled out ('Step 2: only if the person agrees') and the prerequisite for each call (answers + consent for step 1; same answers + token for step 2). It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is unusually concrete.

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