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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses validation behavior, the returned summary/consent line/token, that submission triggers a double opt-in email link before any provider sees data, and the exact scope of consent (up to three advisers, contact direct, stop-further-contact right). That is far beyond what the schema conveys.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then cleanly split into Step 1/Step 2. The verbatim consent paragraph is long and is duplicated almost exactly in the consent parameter's schema description, which is mild redundancy, but it is defensible as compliance-critical text the agent must surface.

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 nested-object, multi-step tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the return artifacts of step 1, the token handoff to step 2, the email-confirmation gate, and consent scope. Nothing an agent must know 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; the description nonetheless adds real semantics — that 'answers' is keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that 'consent' must be true and means a specific enumerated agreement, and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1 used only on the second call. The only shortfall is that it doesn't restate the scalar type constraints the schema already covers.

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 FSMA Crypto Promotions Checker') and immediately carves out what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which separates it from sibling checkout/quote flows. The two-step nature is named up front, so an agent can distinguish it from enquiry_describe/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?

Explicit sequencing: step 1 call with answers+consent=true and show the human the summary/consent line; step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. The gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the prerequisite to display output to the person before re-calling are unambiguous.

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