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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the two-call sequence, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/token, that submission triggers a mandatory email click before any provider sees the data, that no more than three firms receive details, and that the person can stop further distribution.

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-loads the most decision-relevant fact ('NOT a purchase') and uses clear Step 1/Step 2 structure. It loses a little economy by repeating the full consent sentence already present in the schema, which is duplication rather than new information.

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 compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the person receives after step 2 (an email with a click-through link). For a nested-object, two-phase tool with no annotations, nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters, including the consent text verbatim. The description adds workflow meaning for the token ('from step 1, after the person has approved the summary') and the field-key convention, but largely restates what the schema provides, so it sits at the baseline.

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 Final Pay Calculator NZ) and immediately disambiguates the intent with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' That framing cleanly separates it from calculate/calculator_describe siblings, so an agent knows this is a routing/contact request rather than a computation.

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 condition for the second call ('only if the person agrees') and the gating prerequisite (confirmation token from step 1). It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over calculate or when to call enquiry_fields first, though the reference to 'field key from enquiry_fields' implies the dependency.

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