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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses that step 1 only validates (does not submit), that step 2 is the actual submission, that an email with a clickable link is sent, and that providers only see the enquiry after that link is clicked. It even quotes the exact consent line the person must have agreed to, making the side effects and consent requirement fully transparent.

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 lengthy but every sentence earns its place given the two-step protocol; the 'NOT a purchase' clarification is front-loaded and the consent line is quoted exactly to avoid ambiguity. The Step 1/Step 2 structure makes the sequence easy to follow. It could be marginally tightened, but the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains return values: a summary, the consent line, and a confirmation token on step 1. It also covers the post-submission behavior (email with link required before provider visibility). For a tool with no annotations and a complex two-step flow, nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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, and the description adds meaningful value on top: it explains the confirmation parameter as the token returned from step 1, clarifies that consent=true is the gate for both steps, and specifies that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. This flow-level semantics goes beyond the bare schema property descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry to New Employment Rules') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It further clarifies the two-step submission nature, which is unique among the siblings (enquiry_fields, checker_* tools), so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening the 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 description gives explicit step-by-step call sequencing: call first with answers and consent=true to get a summary and token, show the person the summary, then call again only if the person agrees, adding the confirmation token. It also references enquiry_fields for keying answers. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives such as checker_* tools, but the purchase disclaimer and clear two-step protocol provide strong situational guidance.

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