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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers extensively: the two-step validate-then-submit flow, the requirement to show the person the summary and consent line, and the email-with-link that must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. It even discloses the precise consent wording, making the tool's side effects and user-facing obligations 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 dense but well organized around Step 1/Step 2, with the core purpose and exclusions front-loaded in the first sentence. The consent wording appears both in the description and the consent parameter description, a minor redundancy, but no sentence is wasted and the structure makes the two-step protocol 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?

For a two-step, consent-gated tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the input contract, the intermediate return values, the user-facing consent display requirement, and the post-submission email-link behavior needed to set user expectations. The remaining gaps — validation-failure handling and confirmation-token expiry — are minor for correct invocation.

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 workflow semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that confirmation is required only on the second call and that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. This resolves the schema's potential ambiguity that confirmation is merely an optional property.

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 Probate Costs' — and immediately fences the scope with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also orients the tool among its siblings by referencing that answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields,' distinguishing the submit action from the describe/fields helpers.

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 provides an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line, and confirmation token; step 2 is invoked 'only if the person agrees' and includes the confirmation token. It also states exclusions ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and defines the exact consent condition that gates the call, leaving no ambiguity about when or how to invoke it.

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