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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is a two-step operation requiring consent and confirmation, it returns a summary and token in step 1, and it triggers an email verification step before submission. It also quotes the exact consent text and clarifies the consequence of proceeding. This exceeds typical annotation coverage and provides complete behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is lengthy but justified given the two-step process. It is front-loaded with purpose and exclusions, then structured with explicit Step 1 and Step 2 labels. Every sentence adds information; while it could be tightened, the verbosity is necessary for clarity and does not waste the agent's attention.

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?

The description covers all aspects needed for correct invocation: the two-step flow, consent requirements, the confirmation token, the email verification, and the explicit consent wording. It also explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token). No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes the expected outcomes and side effects, making it complete for the agent.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic value: it explains that answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be explicitly agreed upon (quoting the exact text), and that confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This context is essential for correct usage and is not fully apparent from the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: submitting an enquiry to Which M&A Advisor, explicitly excluding purchase and guaranteed quotes. It also references the enquiry_fields tool for field keys, making it distinguishable from sibling tools. The two-step process is described with precision, leaving no ambiguity about the action.

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?

The description provides explicit step-by-step usage instructions: when to call (step 1) and when to call again (step 2, only after consent). It also states exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and specifies that the person must receive and click an email link before providers see the enquiry. It lacks a direct contrast with sibling tools like compare_* but gives sufficient context for appropriate invocation.

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