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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the enquiry is not submitted until the second step, that consent requires agreement to the exact quoted line, and that the person receives an email with a link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. It also reveals what the first call returns: a summary, consent line, and confirmation token.

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 information-dense; every segment earns its place, from disambiguation to step 1, the consent quote, step 2, and the post-submission email behavior. The top-line 'NOT a purchase' prefix and clear Step 1/Step 2 structure make it scannable despite its length.

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 human-submission tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers return values, the exact consent requirement, when to proceed, and the email-link precondition. An agent has enough context to execute the workflow correctly and set user expectations.

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 already 100%, and the description adds meaningful workflow semantics: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent is tied to the exact consent line, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1 for reuse in step 2. This teaches an agent how the parameters relate to each other rather than just restating the schema.

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 opens with a specific action, 'Submits an enquiry to Landlord Database Check', and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. The two-step workflow is stated in the title and elaborated in the body, so an agent can distinguish this from the checker_* and enquiry_* siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step protocol: first call with answers and consent=true to get a summary and confirmation token, then 'only if the person agrees' call again with the same answers and the token. It also states when the tool is not applicable ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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