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: it discloses that this is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, that step 1 performs validation and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, that an email confirmation link is mandatory before any provider sees the data, and the exact consent scope (up to three hospitals/clinics chosen by the service). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 the most important framing (not a purchase), then the two steps in order. It is dense rather than wasteful, but the full verbatim consent paragraph is substantially duplicated in the schema's consent description, which costs it a point.

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 compensates by explaining what each step returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after submission (email link, provider visibility). Combined with a nested answers object and a required consent flag, an agent has everything needed to call both stages 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, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains that answers are keyed by field key sourced from enquiry_fields, that consent must accompany both calls, and that the confirmation token comes from step 1 and is only used on the second call. The token's lifecycle is clearer in the description than in the schema alone.

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 Private Surgery Costs') and immediately bounds it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also names the related sibling concept (answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields), so an agent can place it relative to enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe.

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 with conditions: step 1 validates and returns a token, step 2 is called 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the token. It also specifies the consent gate (consent=true) and that the person must click an emailed link. There is no ambiguity about when to call which stage.

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