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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses the two-step validation/submission flow, the exact consent text, the email notification, and the requirement that the person click a link before any provider sees the enquiry. This gives the agent a complete picture of side effects and prerequisites.

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?

The description is relatively long but every sentence earns its place, covering both steps, the consent requirement, and the post-submission email behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and exclusions, then structured logically by Step 1 and Step 2. The only minor inefficiency is repeating the same answers/consent/token phrase, though this aids accuracy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the full two-step protocol, what the agent should return to the user (summary and consent line), what to do on user agreement, and the resulting email-link behavior. No critical operational detail appears to be missing for 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains that answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true and carries a specific legal meaning, and that confirmation is the token received in step 1 only after user approval. This transforms the parameters from plain fields into a coherent sequence.

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 to Notice Period Calculator NZ') and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which differentiates it from any commerce-related sibling. It also explicitly mentions the two-step human-provider workflow, making its purpose unambiguous alongside siblings like calculate and enquiry_describe.

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 gives explicit step-by-step invocation instructions: call with answers and consent=true, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also provides a clear exclusion ('NOT a purchase'). It does not explicitly name usage alternatives among siblings, but the context for when to use this tool is very clear.

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