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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that this is not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote, requires explicit consent with the exact consent text, and that the enquiry is only visible after the person clicks a link in a follow-up email. These are meaningful side-effect and state-change disclosures.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries operational content: the non-purchase warning, exact consent wording, step sequencing, and email-link behavior. It is mildly redundant with the title ('two steps; not a purchase'), but the repetition reinforces critical constraints, and the workflow is front-loaded.

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 submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: required inputs, consent semantics, step-2 token reuse, confirmation flow, and post-submission behavior. It even references the sibling enquiry_fields tool for valid answer keys.

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?

Although the schema documents all parameters, the description adds crucial meaning: answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the person agrees to the specified text, and confirmation is the token returned from step 1. This bridges the schema fields to the actual workflow.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Martyn's Law Cost.' It immediately clarifies what the tool is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and lays out the two-step process, making the tool's role unmistakable relative to the enquiry_describe and enquiry_fields 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use instructions for both steps: call with answers and consent=true in step 1, then call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token in step 2 only if the person agrees. It also tells the agent to show the summary and consent line to the person, which is clear interaction guidance.

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