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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the two-step validation flow, the return values of step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the downstream side effects (email with a click-through link before providers see it, details sent to up to three firms), and an opt-out mechanism. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to drive a consent-gated mutation.

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 scoping before the step-by-step flow; each sentence carries procedural weight. It loses a point for repeating the full consent sentence verbatim from the schema, which is redundant text an agent already has.

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 exactly what step 1 returns and what the end state is (submitted enquiry plus a verification email). For a nested-object, consent-gated tool, nothing needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it ties 'answers' to field keys from the sibling enquiry_fields, states consent=true for both steps, and clarifies that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 used only on the second call. That sequencing meaning is not derivable from the schema alone.

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') and immediately scopes it against the sibling 'calculate' by ruling out a purchase or guaranteed quote. An agent can distinguish this from the other calculator 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 explicit when-to-use conditions for both calls: step 1 with answers+consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token, and names the sibling 'enquiry_fields' as the source of field keys. It also states when-not ('NOT a purchase'), 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.