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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the two-step validation/submission flow, the fact that step 1 does not submit, that step 2 sends an email requiring a link click before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This goes well beyond a simple 'submit' and gives the agent a complete mental model of side effects and prerequisites.

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 every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the purpose, then structured into Step 1 and Step 2 with precise instructions. The consent line is quoted once in the description and once in the schema, but because consent accuracy is critical, this repetition is justified rather than wasteful.

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?

This is a complex two-step tool with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description is self-contained: it explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what to do with that output, what step 2 does, and what the person will receive. It even references enquiry_fields for defining answer keys, covering the prerequisite. Nothing essential 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, and the description adds meaningful process context: answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields', consent must be true with the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token from step 1 after the person approves. This maps the parameters to the workflow. It does not add formatting details for answers, but the schema already covers accepted types.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Development Exit Finance', immediately clarifying what the tool does. It further distinguishes itself by explicitly stating 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', and the two-step process makes the action unambiguous. The sibling tools are clearly descriptive (enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) while this is the submission action, so no confusion remains.

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 step-by-step usage instructions: call once with answers and consent=true to get a token, show the summary and consent line, then call again with the same answers plus the token only if the person agrees. It also specifies that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, pointing to the relevant sibling tool, and warns against treating this as a purchase or guaranteed quote.

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