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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses the two-step statefulness, that step 1 does not submit, what step 1 returns, that the second call actually submits, that an email link must be clicked before providers see the enquiry, and the exact meaning of consent.

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 well structured with Step 1 and Step 2, and every sentence earns its place. The length is justified by the complexity of the two-step process, the consent requirement, and the email-link behavior, and the most important caveat ('NOT a purchase') 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?

Given the two-step protocol, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what to do first, what to show the user, when to call again, what extra parameter to include, and what outcome to expect. The only minor omission is explicit guidance on sibling-tool routing, but the reference to enquiry_fields covers the main prerequisite.

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?

Even though the schema already describes all parameters, the description adds significant behavioral meaning beyond the schema: answers must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, consent requires the exact quoted agreement, and the confirmation token comes from step 1 and is used only in step 2 after approval. This clarifies how each parameter is used across the two steps.

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 action ('Submits an enquiry to Private Health Costs') and a clear resource, and clarifies that it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote. The two-step nature is headlined in the title and reinforced in the description, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from the sibling 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?

The description gives explicit step-by-step usage instructions: call once for validation, show the summary, then call again with the confirmation token only if the person agrees. It includes important exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and references enquiry_fields for constructing answers, though it does not explicitly compare against enquiry_describe or state when to prefer that sibling.

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