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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the two-step calling convention, the validation and return of a summary/consent line/confirmation token, the condition that the person must agree, the email with a required link, and the fact that providers only see the enquiry after the link is clicked.

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 description is long, but every element earns its place because the tool's two-step flow requires explanation. It is front-loaded with the most critical framing (not a purchase, not a quote) and then walks through the steps in order. A is only lost for the dense single-paragraph structure, which could have been formatted as clear sequential steps.

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?

The description covers the full invocation cycle: input requirements, validation behavior, the intermediate return values, the confirmation requirement, the eventual submission, and the email/link behavior. Given that there is no output schema, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to execute the tool 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?

Although the schema already documents each parameter, the description adds significant procedural meaning beyond the schema. It explains that the same answers must be used in both steps, that confirmation is the token returned from step 1, and precisely what consent means by quoting the consent text.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('submits'), a specific resource ('enquiry to Care Inspectorate Registration'), and clearly distinguishes it from a purchase or quote. It also differentiates from siblings like enquiry_describe (a read operation) and enquiry_fields (metadata retrieval) by emphasizing this is a submission flow.

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?

The description gives explicit procedural context: when to call the tool (step 1 and step 2), when to call again (only after person approves), and what the consent condition is. It does not explicitly name the sibling tools as alternatives, but it clearly frames when this tool is appropriate versus a purchase or a quote.

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