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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that nothing is purchased, that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token that must be shown to the person, that step 2 is conditional on human approval, and that submission triggers a double opt-in email before any provider sees the data. The scope of consent (up to three suppliers, with opt-out) is also stated.

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?

Front-loaded with the crucial distinction ('NOT a purchase') and then laid out as Step 1 / Step 2, which is easy to follow. It is long and re-quotes the full consent sentence verbatim even though the same text already lives 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 mutating, multi-step, no-annotation tool, the description covers the call sequence, the conditional second call, what each step returns, and what happens to the person's data afterwards. With no output schema present, it also adequately describes the step-1 return payload.

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, but the description adds sequencing meaning the schema cannot: that 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that consent=true is the precondition of step 1, and that 'confirmation' comes only from a completed, human-approved step 1.

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 and resource (submits an enquiry to Letting Agent Software) and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which an agent could otherwise confuse. It also names enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so it is distinguishable from its siblings without opening a schema.

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 two-step protocol is spelled out explicitly: step 1 with answers and consent=true, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the token. It does not, however, state when to prefer or avoid the sibling tools (enquiry_fields, enquiry_describe), so the routing context is clear but not complete.

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