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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers thoroughly. It discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a token, step 2 actually submits, an email with a link is sent, and the enquiry is only visible to providers after the link is clicked. The consent text is quoted verbatim, and the two-step side effects are fully visible.

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 earns its place given the complex two-step workflow. It is front-loaded with the key caveat about not being a purchase, then structured clearly into Step 1 and Step 2, making the flow easy to follow.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what step 2 accomplishes, and the critical user-interaction requirement (show the person the summary, wait for agreement, email link click). An agent has everything needed to execute this tool 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. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the same answers must be used in step 2 and that the confirmation token unlocks submission. However, the schema already describes the consent text and the token's origin, so the added value is real but moderate.

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 Prescription Price Checker' and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like checker_answer, enquiry_describe, and enquiry_fields, which handle other parts of the flow.

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 an explicit two-step protocol: call first with answers and consent=true, show the returned summary and consent line, then call again only if the person agrees, with the same answers and the confirmation token. It also defines exactly what consent means and references enquiry_fields for the answer keys, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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