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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the email with a click link, that providers see the enquiry only after the person clicks, and the exact consent wording.

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 dense but well organized with Step 1 and Step 2, front-loads the core action and exclusions, and every sentence contributes essential procedural, consent, or outcome information.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers the call sequence, required inputs, returned artifacts, email behavior, and approval gate, leaving no significant gap for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description still adds meaningful semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation is the step-1 token used only after the person approves the summary.

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 and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Crypto Accountants Directory'. It also explicitly clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and the two-step flow distinguishes it from enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields, and the comparison siblings.

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?

Provides explicit step-by-step guidance: call first with answers and consent=true to get a confirmation token, then call again with the token only if the person agrees. It also states the exclusion (not a purchase/quote) and the requirement that consent must match the quoted agreement.

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