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: it discloses the validation-then-submit flow, the returned summary/consent line/token, and the post-submission email-verification gate before any provider sees the data. The exact scope of consent (up to three consultants, right to stop) is spelled out, which is critical for a tool that shares personal data.

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?

Purpose and the 'not a purchase' disclaimer are front-loaded, and the two steps are clearly enumerated with no filler. The one waste is quoting the full consent sentence, which already appears verbatim in the consent parameter description.

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 two-step, nested-object, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: prerequisites, step ordering, human-approval gate, what each call returns, and the downstream email-verification consequence. Nothing required to invoke 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 baseline is 3; the description adds sequencing semantics the schema cannot convey, namely that 'answers' are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 and may only be supplied after human approval. The verbatim repetition of the consent text adds no meaning beyond the schema's identical consent description.

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 FORS Accreditation Cost) and immediately distinguishes itself from adjacent concepts with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the field keys, so an agent can tell it apart from enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields without opening any 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: call once with answers and consent=true to validate, then call again only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. It states the precondition for each step and the gate (human agreement) rather than leaving sequencing to inference.

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