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 step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing reaches providers until the person clicks an emailed link, and it spells out verbatim what consent authorizes plus the person's right to stop further firms. Side effects, gating and downstream consequences are all covered.

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 two-step structure is front-loaded and each procedural sentence earns its place. The one inefficiency is quoting the full consent text verbatim, which is already duplicated in the `consent` parameter description, adding length without new 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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what happens after step 2 (email with a click-through link before providers see the enquiry). An agent has everything needed to call both steps 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 real semantics beyond the schema: it explains that `confirmation` is omitted in step 1 and required in step 2, that `consent` must be true in both calls, and that `answers` must be keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields. Only the shape of the answers values is left to the schema.

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 Right to Work Wizard") and immediately disambiguates from adjacent concepts with "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote". It also anchors the tool to the sibling that supplies its inputs ("keyed by field key from enquiry_fields"), so an agent can place it in the flow without opening another 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?

It gives an explicit two-step protocol with the exact condition that gates step 2 ("only if the person agrees"), the required payload for each call, and the prerequisite that a confirmation token from step 1 must be supplied. It also routes to the sibling tool that produces the field keys.

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