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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that Step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that Step 2 actually submits, that an email verification click is required before providers see it, and the exact scope of consent (up to three NZ property lawyers who contact the person directly). This is a mutation tool with real legal/consent consequences and the behaviour is fully disclosed.

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?

Well front-loaded and structured as Step 1 / Step 2 with the scope warning first, and every sentence does work. The one inefficiency is that the consent sentence is reproduced verbatim from the consent parameter's schema description, which is duplication rather than added value.

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, the description must explain return values and it does: Step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token, and Step 2 returns a submitted enquiry plus an email link. Combined with the nested answers object and the two-step flow, 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true is tied to a specific agreed statement, and the confirmation token is explicitly defined as the value returned by Step 1 and only to be supplied after the person approves the summary. That workflow semantics is not derivable 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Conveyancing Fees NZ') and immediately bounds the scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' which is the exact confusion an agent would otherwise have. It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so the tool is distinguishable from its neighbours.

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 exact conditions for each call: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, Step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers, consent=true and the confirmation token. It also states the gating rule that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry, leaving nothing to inference.

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