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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent and open-world, and the description goes well beyond them: it spells out the consent wording, the return values (reference number plus expected contact time), the crucial negative guarantees ('Nothing is applied for and no credit check is run'), and the exact retry semantics tied to idempotency_key. That is precisely the behavioural context an agent needs before committing a person's details.

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 content is front-loaded (what it does, then consent requirement, then outcome, then caveats) and every sentence carries information. It is a dense single paragraph with some clauses that could be tightened, but there is no filler.

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 13-parameter, consent-gated, outward-facing submission with an output schema, the description covers the legally meaningful requirements, the return shape in brief, the absence of credit checks or applications, and idempotent retries. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely 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 92%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema cannot: the precise consent text that makes consent:true valid, and the duplicate-suppression behaviour of idempotency_key. It does not explain the distinction between scenario, business_purpose, or notice_shown beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Sends a business owner's finance enquiry to a licensed Switchboard Finance broker') and clarifies the downstream contact channels. It also implicitly distinguishes the tool from sibling check_fit by referencing the collection notice that check_fit produces, so an agent can place it in the workflow.

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?

It states a hard prerequisite ('Requires consent: true') with the exact wording the person must have agreed to, and references check_fit's notice_shown, which implies ordering relative to a sibling. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming an alternative tool for cases where the enquiry should not be submitted.

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