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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it discloses the two-phase validate/submit flow, that step 1 returns a summary and consent line to be shown to the person, that submission triggers a confirmation email whose link must be clicked before any provider sees the data, and the exact consent semantics. This is substantially more than the schema conveys.

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-loads the critical distinction (not a purchase) and then walks the two steps in order. It is on the long side and the consent text is duplicated verbatim from the schema, but every clause serves the two-step protocol or the consent requirement.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token; then a confirmation email link), what the person must do, and when providers gain visibility. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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, but the description adds sequencing semantics the schema cannot express — that consent must reflect genuine agreement and that the token from step 1 is required for step 2 despite being optional in the schema. That meaningfully clarifies invocation beyond the field descriptions.

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 ('Submits an enquiry to Compare My Conveyancing') and immediately disambiguates scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can distinguish this from the compare_* siblings without opening any 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 get a token; Step 2 only if the person agrees, repeating answers plus the confirmation token. Both when-to-call conditions and the gating on human approval are stated, not implied.

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