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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what must be shown to the user, that submission triggers an email with a link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry, and the full scope of consent (contact details to up to three suppliers chosen by Bank Convert). That is unusually rich side-effect and privacy disclosure.

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 'NOT a purchase' constraint and the two-step framing are front-loaded, and the numbered steps are easy to follow. The verbatim consent sentence is long but is required legal text the agent must echo, so it earns its place; overall slightly verbose but not padded.

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 and no annotations, the description compensates by naming the step 1 return values and the step 2 outcome (email with a link the person must click). An agent has everything needed to run the flow correctly, including the consent condition and the sequencing.

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 baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that answers are keyed by field keys obtained from enquiry_fields and that the confirmation token is only used in step 2 after approval. It does not add format or validation constraints beyond the schema, so it lands at 4 rather than 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 Bank Convert) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which is the exact confusion an agent could have. It also ties itself to the sibling enquiry_fields by saying answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields.

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: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The when-not condition ('only if the person agrees') and the routing to enquiry_fields for keys leave nothing to inference.

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