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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary plus a token, that step 2 performs the actual submission, that an email verification step gates provider visibility, and the exact meaning of consent. It also warns that no guaranteed quote results, heading off a false expectation of a commercial outcome.

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' disclaimer, then the two steps in order, which is the right structure for a flow tool. It is dense and slightly overlong because the full consent sentence is quoted verbatim, duplicating what the schema already documents for the consent parameter.

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, two-phase mutation with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: input source for answers, the sequencing of the token, the consent semantics, and the downstream email-verification gate. The only omission is failure/retry behavior, which is minor at this complexity.

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 real meaning: it ties 'answers' to field keys sourced from enquiry_fields and explains that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1, which is the non-obvious sequencing constraint. It does not add value types or format examples beyond the schema, so it stops short of a 5.

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 Growth Shares Valuation') and immediately delimits scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misread. It is clearly distinguished from the sibling tools enquiry_fields (source of field keys) and enquiry_describe, so an agent can route correctly.

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 prescribes a two-step protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 only after the person approves the summary and only when the confirmation token is supplied. It also states the gating condition that the recipient must click an emailed link before any provider sees the enquiry. When-to-use and when-not-to-proceed are both spelled out.

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