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: it discloses validation-only behavior on step 1, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double-opt-in email link that must be clicked before any provider sees the data, distribution to up to three firms, and the person's ability to stop further sharing. Side effects and consent semantics are fully spelled out.

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 purpose and the two steps in order, and every procedural sentence earns its place. It loses a point because the full consent paragraph is quoted verbatim, duplicating the schema's consent description rather than pointing to it.

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 both return payloads (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email/link flow. For a multi-step, consent-bearing submission tool this is complete enough to drive correct invocation.

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; the description nonetheless adds real meaning by sequencing the parameters — consent is tied to specific agreed terms and the confirmation token is only valid in step 2 after human approval. It does restate the consent wording already present in the schema, which caps it below 5.

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 (submit an enquiry to Holiday Pay Calculator NZ) and immediately bounds the scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which separates it from the calculator/evaluation siblings. It also references the sibling that supplies its input ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true to validate, Step 2 call only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. The precondition for the second call and the human-approval gate are stated with no room for inference.

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