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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission is not visible to providers until the person clicks an emailed verification link, and it quotes the exact consent text. These are non-obvious lifecycle facts an agent could not guess.

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 negation and two-step structure are front-loaded and the sentences are dense with required behavior rather than filler. The closing consent quotation is long but is arguably load-bearing since it is the exact text the person must agree to.

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 nested-object, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies what the schema cannot: return values (summary, consent line, token), the human-approval checkpoint, and the email verification step. An agent has everything needed to complete both calls 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes further by tying answers to keys from enquiry_fields and by clarifying that confirmation is only supplied on the second call with the same answers. It adds sequencing semantics the schema's flat per-property descriptions 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+resource+target ('Submits an enquiry to Business Valuation Cost') and immediately bounds scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also points to the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, distinguishing it from the enumeration/describe tools.

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-call protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate and get a token, step 2 only after the person agrees. The gate condition ('only if the person agrees') and the required human review of the summary are stated outright, leaving no inference needed.

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