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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discharges it: it discloses that step 1 returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token, that the enquiry is only submitted on step 2, and that a double opt-in email must be clicked before any provider sees the data. It also spells out what consent actually authorizes (contact details to up to three providers).

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 front-loaded and easy to follow, and the length is justified by the two-phase protocol. The one cost is the verbatim consent paragraph, which largely duplicates the schema's consent description, adding redundancy rather than new information.

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 complex two-step tool with a nested answers object, no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers the call sequence, return values, consent semantics, and the downstream email-verification effect. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds relational meaning beyond the schema: answers are keyed by field keys drawn from enquiry_fields, consent must be true at both steps, and confirmation is only supplied on step 2 after approval. This clarifies how the three fields interact across the flow.

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 M365 Migration Cost") and immediately scopes it with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, letting an agent place it among the enquiry_* tools 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?

Gives an explicit two-step procedure with the exact condition that selects each call: Step 1 with answers+consent, then Step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the confirmation token. It also tells the agent what to show the person between steps, 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.