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 well: it discloses validation, the returned summary/consent line/token, the double-submission requirement, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data. It stops short of error/failure behavior and auth prerequisites, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 step sequence is front-loaded and each clause is actionable, but the long consent paragraph is reproduced nearly verbatim from the `consent` property description, which is redundant repetition rather than added value for a reader who already has the schema.

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 must describe return values — and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token) along with the post-submission email-verification flow. Combined with the two-step protocol and consent semantics, an agent has everything needed to call this 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by tying `answers` to the keys produced by enquiry_fields and by framing `confirmation` as the step-1 token that only applies on the second call. That usage context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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+resource ("Submits an enquiry to Executive Search Fees") and immediately scopes it with two explicit non-goals ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). It also names the sibling that supplies the input shape ("keyed by field key from enquiry_fields"), so an agent can place the tool without opening other schemas.

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?

It lays out an explicit two-step procedure with the condition that gates step 2 ("only if the person agrees"), telling the agent exactly when to make each call and what to show the user in between. Nothing about when to invoke this versus its siblings is left to inference beyond the field-source reference.

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