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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is a two-step process, requires explicit consent with a specific wording, and involves an email verification link before providers see the enquiry. It also reveals that validation returns a summary, consent line, and token, and that submission happens only after user approval.

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 dense paragraph but remains efficient, with each sentence contributing necessary information. It front-loads the key distinction and clearly labels Step 1 and Step 2. Slightly more structure (bullets) could improve readability, but it is far from verbose.

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 the complexity of a two-step workflow with nested answers object and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: return values (summary, token), consent requirement, email verification, and the condition for the second call. No critical information 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already describes each parameter, including the confirmation token's purpose ('after the person has approved the summary'). The description adds flow context but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Submits an enquiry to Locum Tax Calculator' and immediately distinguishes it from related actions with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' This specific verb-resource pairing, reinforced by the title, separates it from sibling tools like calculate or enquiry_describe.

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 instructions: Step 1 requires calling with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token; Step 2 is only performed if the person agrees, using the same answers plus the token. It also states when not to use the tool (not for purchase or quote) and what to show the user.

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