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. It does this well: it explains validation, the intermediate summary and token, the second submission step, the email link requirement, and the exact meaning of consent. This is far beyond what structured annotations would typically convey.

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: purpose, step 1, step 2, and the exact consent text. It is structured as a walkthrough with front-loaded purpose and clear sequential instructions, not padded with fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description appropriately covers return behavior for both steps: a summary, consent line, confirmation token, then an email with a click link after submission. It also covers the consent prerequisite and the two-step conditional flow. Error-handling details are absent, but the core workflow is complete enough for an agent to call the tool 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?

The schema already has 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent has a specific quoted meaning, and confirmation is the token from step 1. One minor gap is that the schema does not mark confirmation as required even though the description says it is needed in step 2.

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 clearly states the verb ('Submits an enquiry'), the resource ('Find A Co-Packer'), and explicitly what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It is easy to distinguish from sibling tools because it focuses on the submission workflow rather than describing or listing 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 a precise two-step procedure: first call with answers and consent to get a summary/token, then call again only after the person agrees, using the token. It also states the exact consent condition and notes that the person must click an email link before providers see the enquiry, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to invoke the tool.

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