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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers thoroughly: it discloses that step 1 only validates (returns summary, consent line, confirmation token), that step 2 actually submits, that the person receives an email with a click-required link before any provider sees it, and the exact consent wording. No runtime surprises are left unstated.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: the key caveat is front-loaded ('not a purchase'), steps are explicitly labeled, and the consent text is included verbatim since it is legally/operationally critical. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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 consent-gated submission tool with no output schema, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: return values of step 1, the token handoff, the email link requirement, and the full consent wording. An agent can execute both steps correctly without further information.

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 adds value beyond the schema by wiring the three parameters into the flow: answers come keyed from enquiry_fields, consent=true gates step 1, and the confirmation token is only added in step 2 after approval. This clarifies the temporal dependency among parameters that the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Submits an enquiry to HMO Mortgage Calculator') and immediately sets scope boundaries: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' The two-step nature and the consent requirement are stated upfront, so an agent knows exactly what action this tool performs and what it does not.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step protocol: call with answers and consent=true first, show the person the summary and consent line, then 'only if the person agrees' call again with the confirmation token. It references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, implying how to prepare input. It does not explicitly contrast against siblings like enquiry_describe, but the step-by-step when-to-call guidance is concrete and unambiguous.

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