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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the exact response contents (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the two-phase gating, that nothing is submitted until step 2, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the details. Reversibility is also covered ('can stop any more firms getting them'), and the verbatim consent definition is supplied.

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 two-step flow is front-loaded and each sentence carries operational content, which is justified for a gated, consent-sensitive submission. The main inefficiency is that the consent text appears both as prose and as a full quoted definition (and again in the schema), making the description longer than strictly needed.

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, and the description compensates fully by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what submission triggers (an email with a click-through link, disclosure to up to three providers). Prerequisites, side effects, and the stopping condition are all stated, so an agent has everything needed to drive the call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds orchestration meaning the schema alone cannot: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, and confirmation is only populated in step 2 after the person approves the summary. The verbatim consent wording duplicates the schema, so it is additive rather than transformative.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (submits an enquiry to Employment Rights Checker) and immediately scopes it with two negations: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also distinguishes the two call modes and points to the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys, so an agent can place it in the flow without opening the 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?

Explicit step-by-step when-to-use: Step 1 is called with answers and consent=true to validate and obtain a token; Step 2 is called only if the person agrees and includes that token. It even prescribes the sequencing of what to show the person between steps, leaving essentially nothing to inference.

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