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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so: it discloses validation behaviour, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), that submission triggers an email with a link the person must click before any provider sees the data, and that up to three firms may receive details with per-firm notification and opt-out. This is far beyond what a bare mutation description would provide.

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 'Step 1:'/'Step 2:' structure is well front-loaded and every sentence carries operational meaning. The one inefficiency is the full verbatim reproduction of the consent text, which already exists in the schema's consent description.

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 nested-object, no-output-schema, no-annotation mutation with real-world consequences (contact details shared with third parties), the description covers invocation sequence, return artefacts, downstream email confirmation, and consent scope. An agent has everything needed to execute both steps 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%, so all three parameters are already fully documented, including the consent text. The description ties `answers` to field keys from enquiry_fields and places `confirmation` in the step-2 flow, but the consent wording is quoted verbatim from the schema, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 and resource ('Submits an enquiry to Late Payment Interest') and immediately sets scope boundaries ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also distinguishes the two-step nature of the call, which the sibling tools (calculate, enquiry_describe, enquiry_fields) do not cover.

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?

Explicitly prescribes when to call each time: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only after the person agrees and with the confirmation token. It also tells the agent what to do with step 1's output ('show the person the summary and the consent line') before proceeding, leaving nothing to inference.

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