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 richly: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that step 2 triggers an email with a click-through link before any provider sees the enquiry, and exactly what consent means. This is far beyond what a bare mutation description would provide.

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 critical disambiguation (NOT a purchase) is front-loaded, then the flow is laid out step by step. It is long, and the consent paragraph is duplicated verbatim from the schema, which is mild redundancy, but every other 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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly explains what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email/link behavior. For a two-step consent-sensitive tool, nothing an agent needs to call 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 genuine meaning: it explains answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true, and that confirmation is the token returned from step 1 after approval. It goes beyond restating the schema by embedding these in the workflow.

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 (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Forensic Accountant Cost) and immediately disambiguates it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. It also ties into the sibling enquiry_fields by naming the field key source, so an agent can tell it apart from the sibling 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?

Explicitly lays out a two-step flow with conditions: step 1 with answers+consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The when-to-call-again rule and the dependency on the person's approval are both stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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