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 thoroughly: it discloses that consent means contact details go to up to three named agencies, that the person is emailed each firm's name and can stop further sharing, and that a verification link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. These are exactly the side effects an agent must understand before executing a state-mutating call.

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 critical constraint ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded and the two steps are clearly sequenced. However, the consent paragraph is quoted verbatim and duplicates the identical text already in the schema's consent description, which is some wasted length in an otherwise dense passage.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a nested answers object, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the two-step flow, what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, token), what the person must be shown, and the downstream effect of submission. No material gap remains 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real value by specifying that answers are keyed by field keys sourced from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true, and that the confirmation token comes from step 1 after approval. It does not add format or validation detail beyond this, so it sits just above the schema-driven baseline.

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 Revalidation Tracker') and immediately demarcates it from adjacent concepts ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also anchors the answers parameter to the sibling tool enquiry_fields, so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening a schema.

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 lays out an explicit two-call protocol: step 1 with answers+consent to validate and obtain a token, step 2 'only if the person agrees' with the same answers plus the confirmation token. When to call, when not to proceed, and the gating condition are all stated rather than implied.

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