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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that submission is gated on human approval, and that the person must click an emailed link before any provider sees the data. It even enumerates what the consent actually authorizes (up to three academies/agents, notification per firm, ability to stop).

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-loaded with the not-a-purchase framing, then the two steps in order — a good structure. It is somewhat long, and the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim in the description while the schema's consent field repeats the same text, a minor redundancy that costs a point.

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?

No annotations and no output schema exist, yet the description still specifies the step-1 return values (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the required human-in-the-loop checkpoint, and the post-submission email verification flow. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly across two turns 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 sequencing semantics the schema can't express: "answers" come keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, the same "answers" plus consent=true are re-sent in step 2, and "confirmation" is the token from step 1 used only after the summary is approved. This goes beyond the per-field descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Submits an enquiry to Football Trials Database") and immediately disambiguates with two negations: "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." It also names the sibling that supplies its input data ("keyed by field key from enquiry_fields"), so an agent can distinguish it from enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, Step 2 "only if the person agrees" with the same answers plus the confirmation token. It also states the precondition for consent (the person has read and agreed to the quoted text), so both when-to-call and when-not-to-proceed are covered.

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