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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses validation on step 1, the exact artifacts returned (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the hard gate that no provider sees the enquiry until the person clicks an emailed link, and the fee model. It also defines what consent=true obligates the person to, which is the highest-risk ambiguity in the call.

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 and well ordered as Step 1 / Step 2, but the full consent paragraph is quoted verbatim and is already present in the schema description for the consent parameter, making roughly a third of the description duplicated boilerplate. The step instructions themselves are tight; the consent quotation is dead weight.

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, and the description compensates by describing what each step returns (summary, consent line, token) and what happens after submission (email with a click-through link). The nested answers object is covered by pointing at enquiry_fields for the key set, which is exactly the right dependency to name.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds sequencing semantics the schema cannot express: the same answers object must be resent in step 2 alongside the token, and answers are keyed by field keys defined in the sibling enquiry_fields tool. It does not restate the consent text meaning beyond what the schema description already holds.

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 Gallbladder Surgery Cost") and immediately negates two plausible misreadings ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). It also ties itself to the sibling tool by naming where the field keys come from (enquiry_fields), so an agent can place it in the toolset without opening a 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?

The two-step protocol is spelled out with explicit gating conditions: step 1 with answers + consent=true returns a summary and token, step 2 happens "only if the person agrees" and requires the token. It also says what to do with intermediate output ("show the person the summary and the consent line"), 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.