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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission requires a second call, that the person must click an email link before any provider sees the enquiry, and that details go to up to three consultants who can be stopped. It does not cover failure behavior (invalid token, validation errors) or retry/idempotency, which matters for a token-gated two-step 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 the purpose and the negative framing, then walks the two steps in order. It is dense but every clause is operational; the only waste is re-quoting the full consent sentence verbatim when the 'consent' parameter description in the schema already carries the identical text.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: step 1 returns a summary, the consent line and a confirmation token; step 2 triggers an email with a click-through link before providers see anything. Combined with the full two-step protocol, an agent has everything needed 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds flow-level meaning the schema cannot: that 'answers' are keyed by the field key obtained from enquiry_fields, and that 'confirmation' is only supplied on the second call after the person approves the summary. This clarifies when each parameter is populated, which the flat schema does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Care Inspectorate Registration') and immediately delimits it against what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lookup tools enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields, which the description implicitly routes around by naming enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys.

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, then Step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The condition selecting each call and the ordering constraint are 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.