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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool validates and returns a summary/consent/token, that the enquiry is only submitted after the confirmation call, and that an email link must be clicked before providers see it — all material side-effect behavior.

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 two-step structure and bold NOT statements make the text easy to parse, and every major behavior is present. It is slightly redundant — 'NOT a purchase' repeats the title and the consent quote duplicates the schema — but the clarity cost is minor.

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 two-step tool with no output schema, the description covers the full invocation lifecycle: required inputs, validation behavior, the consent requirement, the follow-up call, and the email-link gating. An agent can correctly sequence both calls from this text alone.

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?

Though the schema already covers all parameters, the description adds critical meaning: answers are keyed by enquiry_fields keys, consent requires the exact quoted agreement, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This gives the agent operational 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Forensic Accountant Cost') and immediately distinguishes the action from a purchase or quote, matching the title's 'not a purchase'. It names the two-step submission lifecycle, making it clearly different from sibling tools like enquiry_describe and enquiry_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?

It explicitly prescribes step 1 and step 2 with exact call conditions: include consent=true, and for step 2 include the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It also references enquiry_fields for how to key answers, giving the agent a concrete path through the sibling tools.

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