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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that the tool validates, returns a summary and consent line, sends an email, and requires the recipient to click a link before the enquiry is visible to providers. It also spells out the exact consent language, which is critical behavioral context.

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 long but tightly structured into Step 1 and Step 2, with the most important caveats placed up front. Every sentence conveys essential procedural, consent, or safety information, so there is no waste.

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 annotations and no output schema, yet the description covers the full invocation flow, the meaning of each parameter across both steps, the consent requirement, and the post-submission email-link behavior. An agent has enough context to call it correctly without relying on additional references.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful procedural semantics by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is only true after the person agrees to the exact statement, and confirmation is only used in step 2 after the summary is approved.

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 Executive Search Fees.' It also clearly differentiates itself from siblings by emphasizing 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' and by describing the two-step submission flow, which is distinct from enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields.

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 provides explicit step-by-step usage instructions: first call with answers and consent=true to get a confirmation token, then call again only after the person agrees. It also gives context about when not to use the tool (not for purchases or guaranteed quotes), though it does not explicitly mention alternatives like enquiry_describe or enquiry_fields.

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