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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, that submission triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees it, and the exact scope of consent (up to three providers, notified per firm, revocable). These are precisely the side effects and consent semantics an agent needs before invoking a write.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then proceeds step by step, which is the right order for a gated flow. It is long and quotes the consent statement that already appears verbatim in the consent parameter description, a mild redundancy, but the bulk of the text earns its place by specifying the two-call protocol.

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, consent-gated write with a nested answers object, no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the missing ground: what each call returns, why the second call is gated, and what happens to the person's data afterward. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.

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 adds genuine sequencing meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true for both calls, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned in Step 1 and only passed after the person approves the summary.

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 ('Submits an enquiry to ADR Courses') and immediately scopes it with what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also ties itself to sibling tools by referencing 'field key from enquiry_fields', so an agent can place it among enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without ambiguity.

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 conditional that gates the second call is stated outright, leaving nothing to inference.

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