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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, and it delivers: it reveals that the first call is non-final and returns a summary, consent line, and token; the second call actually submits and triggers an email; and providers see nothing until the person clicks the emailed link. The exact consent wording is included, so the agent knows the required condition precisely.

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 every sentence earns its place: the not-a-purchase warning is front-loaded, the two steps are clearly sequenced, the consent text is quoted exactly, and the email/provider-visibility consequence is included. No filler or repeated schema information.

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, high-stakes submission tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full flow, the required consent text, the follow-up token, and the post-submission effect. The agent can execute both steps correctly and knows what to show the user and when to proceed.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining the life cycle of each parameter: answers must use keys from enquiry_fields, consent must reflect agreement to the quoted statement, and confirmation is the token returned in step 1. This adds meaningful operational meaning to the raw schema fields.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('submits an enquiry to Right to Work Wizard') and immediately differentiates it from a purchase or quote. The title reinforces the two-step nature, and the description clearly distinguishes this submission tool from the sibling checker and enquiry-inspection 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?

Usage is explicitly spelled out as a two-step sequence: call first with answers and consent=true to validate and obtain a confirmation token, then call again only if the person agrees. It also states what the tool is NOT for (not a purchase, not a guaranteed quote) and implies using enquiry_fields to key the answers, giving clear routing guidance.

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