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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses validation behavior, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that step 2 causes real submission, and that a double opt-in email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data. It also clarifies the consent semantics and the cap of three providers.

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 and dense — the disambiguation comes first, then the numbered steps. It loses a little economy by reproducing the full consent paragraph verbatim from the schema's consent description, but that text is arguably needed so the agent can show it to the person.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description covers the return payload of step 1, the effect of step 2, and the post-submission verification email. Nothing an agent needs to drive the correct sequence 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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond it: 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'consent' must be true at both steps, and 'confirmation' is the step-1 token that is only supplied on the approved second call. That is flow-level semantics the schema cannot express.

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 Notice Period Calculator NZ) and immediately disambiguates it from adjacent concepts: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step framing plus the reference to enquiry_fields makes its position relative to the sibling tools unmistakable.

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 explicit, sequential when-to-use rules: Step 1 calls with answers and consent=true, then show the returned summary and consent line; Step 2 is called 'only if the person agrees' and requires the confirmation token. The gating condition is stated, not inferred.

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