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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, the confirmation-email click gate, and that contact details go to up to three ecologists who contact the person directly. It omits failure modes (invalid/expired token, consent=false) and rate/volume limits, so not quite full 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?

Front-loaded with the most important caveat before the mechanics, and the step-by-step sequencing is easy to scan. Slightly over-long due to the inline consent quote, which is already reproduced in the schema.

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 exists, and the description compensates by naming what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token). For a nested-object, two-phase mutation with no annotations, this covers everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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% and the consent text is duplicated verbatim from the schema, so most parameter meaning is already structured. The description adds only the ordering relationship (answers keyed by enquiry_fields; confirmation token comes from step 1), which is largely restated within the schema descriptions themselves.

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 Bat Survey Cost") and immediately bounds it with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so an agent can tell it apart from the descriptive siblings without opening a schema.

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 and obtain a token, Step 2 only if the person agrees. It names the condition that selects each call and the gate (person approval, email click) before providers see anything.

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