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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that the first call validates and does not submit, that the second call is required for actual submission, that an email with a click-link is sent, and that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the critical 'not a purchase/not a quote' distinction, then presents the two-step flow in a clear, ordered structure without redundant 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 two-step submission tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned at each step, what the confirmation token is for, the exact consent text required, and the downstream email/click behavior, leaving minimal ambiguity for an 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds valuable workflow semantics beyond the schema, particularly the step-1/step-2 relationship between answers, consent, and the confirmation token, and the requirement to reuse the same answers in step 2.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry'), names the target resource ('Holiday Pay Calculator NZ'), and clearly distinguishes itself from a purchase or quote. It also differentiates this tool from calculation-focused siblings by framing it as a human-provider enquiry 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?

The description provides explicit two-step usage instructions, including when to call first, when to call second, and the consent precondition. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or formal 'when not to use' conditions, but it does state that this is not a purchase and not a guaranteed quote, giving useful context for selection.

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