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: validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/confirmation token, the double opt-in email link that must be clicked before providers see anything, and the exact scope of consent (up to three suppliers, direct contact, opt-out). It omits rate limits and failure modes, but the safety-critical behavior is unusually well disclosed.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then walks the two steps in order with no filler. The full consent paragraph is quoted in the description in addition to the schema's identical field description, which is a genuine redundancy.

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, yet the description states what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token) and what step 2 triggers (submission plus a confirmation email the person must action). For a two-step tool with a nested answers object, nothing essential to calling it correctly 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, but the description adds step-wise semantics the schema cannot: which parameters belong to step 1 versus step 2, and that the confirmation token is only supplied after the person approves the summary. Consent text is duplicated verbatim from the schema, which adds no new meaning.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Food Hygiene Alerts') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step framing also separates it cleanly from siblings like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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?

Prescribes exactly when and how to call: step 1 with answers + consent=true (validates and returns summary/token), step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the token. It also names the source of the keys ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), routing the agent to the right sibling.

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