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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 causes an email with a click-through link required before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three advisers the person can stop. This is meaningful downstream-effect disclosure that cannot be inferred from the schema.

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then the numbered flow — easy to scan. Minor waste: the consent sentence is reproduced verbatim from the schema's consent description, an unavoidable but still redundant repetition.

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?

No output schema and no annotations exist, so the description must explain return behavior — and it does, describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what the person receives after step 2. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this two-phase tool correctly 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 description adds real value by telling the agent that 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that 'confirmation' is the token returned by step 1. It doesn't add format detail beyond that, but the cross-tool reference and sequencing of parameters go beyond the schema.

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 New Employment Rules') and immediately rules out two misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also anchors the 'answers' input to the sibling tool enquiry_fields, so an agent can distinguish it from the checker_* and enquiry_* 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 two-step workflow is spelled out with an explicit gating condition ('Step 2: only if the person agrees'), which tells the agent exactly when to call again. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with enquiry_describe/enquiry_fields as alternatives, but the sequencing guidance is clear.

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