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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it states validation behavior and return contents for step 1, the side effect of submission in step 2, and the downstream double opt-in (email link must be clicked before any provider sees it). It also rules out purchase/quote semantics, which an agent could otherwise assume.

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-loads the most important disambiguation (not a purchase) and structures the body as step 1 / step 2, which is easy to follow. The full consent quotation is duplicated from the schema, which is some wasted length, but it is defensible since the agent must display that exact line.

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?

With no output schema, the description step-in for return values by describing the step 1 response (summary, consent line, token) and the step 2 outcome (submitted enquiry plus confirmation email). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 real value by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is the token returned by step 1 and only used after approval. The consent semantics are restated verbatim from the schema, adding little beyond the structured field.

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 Probate Costs") and immediately disambiguates scope with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." The two-step framing makes it clearly distinct from the sibling enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe 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 explicit when-to-use instructions for each step: step 1 with answers + consent=true to validate, step 2 only "if the person agrees," with the same answers plus the token. It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so the agent knows the intended call order.

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