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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 triggers an email with a click-to-confirm link required before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three chosen specialists with stop rights. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs.

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-loads the critical 'NOT a purchase' caveat and structures the flow as Step 1/Step 2. The full consent text is embedded and largely duplicates the consent parameter description in the schema, which is the one place the wording could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the downstream email/confirmation consequence. For a two-phase nested-object tool this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 sequencing meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true is a hard requirement with defined semantics, and confirmation is only supplied on the second call. That sequencing context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 (submits), resource (an enquiry), and scope ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), and outlines the two-step flow. An agent can distinguish this from the calculate/calculator_describe/enquiry_* siblings 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?

Gives explicit call conditions: Step 1 with answers+consent=true, then Step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition for the second call is stated, not left to inference.

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