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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the two-step flow, that step 1 only validates and returns a token, that submission triggers an email with a click-to-confirm link before providers see anything, that up to three providers are contacted, and the exact consent wording. This is rich behavioral detail an agent could not infer otherwise.

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?

Well front-loaded with the key distinction (not a purchase) and cleanly structured as Step 1/Step 2. It is somewhat long because the consent wording is quoted verbatim, which is justified for accuracy but adds bulk.

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?

Given a mutation-style tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: the two-step protocol, parameter dependencies, consent semantics, and the downstream email-confirmation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning the schema cannot: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person has read and agreed, and confirmation is the token from step 1 required only in step 2. It explains the interaction between parameters across the two calls, which the flat schema 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?

States a specific verb+resource (submits an enquiry to Knee Replacement Cost) and explicitly distinguishes it from a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step structure further clarifies exactly what the tool does and when each invocation happens.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance for each step: Step 1 with answers+consent, Step 2 only after the person agrees and with the confirmation token. Also routes the agent by naming sibling tools (enquiry_fields for field keys), leaving no ambiguity about sequencing or alternatives.

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