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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-step flow, the consent requirement, the confirmation token, and the post-submission email link that the person must click before providers see the enquiry. It also sets expectations that it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, covering behavioral nuances.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that leads with the core purpose, then details the two steps. It is not verbose—every sentence adds necessary context for the two-step flow, though it could be formatted as bullets for easier parsing. Still, it is efficient for the complexity involved.

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 tool with a two-step workflow, consent handling, and an external email confirmation, the description covers all critical aspects: validation step, token generation, consent text, and the email link requirement. There is no output schema, but the description explains what the agent receives at each stage, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

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% and each parameter already has a descriptive comment. The description adds the relationship between the two calls and the confirmation token, and explicitly ties answers to the enquiry_fields tool. This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions, adding meaningful context for correct invocation.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Invoice Factoring Cost' and explicitly negates 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like calculator or enquiry_describe, and the two-step nature is front-loaded.

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 description provides explicit step-by-step usage: Step 1 validates and returns a token, Step 2 requires the token and explicit consent. It also clarifies the consent line verbatim, ensuring the agent knows exactly when to call and what conditions apply. No alternative tools are named, but the purpose and workflow are unambiguous.

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