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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it fully delivers. It discloses the stateful two-step behavior, that step 1 only validates, that an email with a click-link is required before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent semantics. This is rich, accurate behavioral disclosure with no reliance on structured annotations.

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 justified by the tool's complexity: a two-step stateful flow, consent requirements, and email verification. It is front-loaded with the crucial 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote' caveat and organized into clear Step 1/Step 2 sections, so every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a complex stateful tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete: it covers what step 1 returns, what step 2 does, the post-submission email-link requirement, and consent semantics. Minor gaps remain, such as failure modes, behavior when consent=false, or invalid-token handling, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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. The description adds real value on top: it explains that answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, that the confirmation parameter is the token produced by step 1, and it embeds the exact consent language tied to the consent parameter. This meaningfully deepens the agent's understanding beyond the bare schema.

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 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step flow and title further clarify it is the submission action, distinct from the checker_* siblings and enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields which are clearly exploration or verification tools.

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?

Provides an explicit step-by-step calling protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true to obtain a token, step 2 only if the person agrees, using the same answers plus the token. It gives a clear when-not ('NOT a purchase') and references enquiry_fields as the source for field keys. However, it stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools and conditions for when to use them instead.

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