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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the validation-and-summary behavior of step 1, the token round-trip, that submission triggers an email the person must click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact scope of consent (up to three brokers, named notifications, opt-out right). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 disambiguation ('NOT a purchase') followed by a clean step-by-step. The long verbatim consent text is repeated content that also appears in the schema, which costs some efficiency, but the rest of the text earns its place.

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 correctly explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a verification link). Nothing an agent needs to drive this two-call flow 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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description genuinely adds semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must accompany both calls, and confirmation is specifically the token returned by step 1 and only after the person approves the summary. That sequencing is not derivable from the schema.

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 to Development Exit Finance') and immediately distinguishes it from adjacent concepts ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). An agent can tell it apart from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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 and consent=true, step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It names the prerequisite for each call and the exact condition that triggers the second one.

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