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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the validation-and-return behavior, the exact return artifacts (summary, consent line, confirmation token), the email-verification gate before any provider sees the data, the disclosure to up to three attorneys, and the user's ability to stop further firms receiving details. This is far beyond what the schema conveys.

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 two-step flow; every sentence carries operational information. The only waste is the verbatim re-quoting of the consent text, which is already present in the schema's consent description, though restating it is defensible for a consent-critical tool.

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 exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token). For a complex, stateful, nested-object tool with a legal-consent dimension, the description supplies everything needed to call 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and, crucially, that the confirmation token is only supplied on the second call after the person approves the summary — a sequencing constraint the schema alone does not express.

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 Patent Attorney Cost") and immediately fences off the two most likely misinterpretations ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"). It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so the agent can distinguish it from the other two enquiry tools.

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 protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate and obtain a token, step 2 only if the person agrees, with the same answers plus the token. It even specifies what to show the user 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.