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 the validation-then-confirm state machine, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, and that a double opt-in email link gates provider visibility. That is far more behavioral context than typical for a mutation tool.

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-loaded with the purpose and negatives, then structured as Step 1 / Step 2 — very scannable. The trailing verbatim consent quote partially duplicates the schema's consent description, which is the only mild redundancy.

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, so the description must explain returns — and it does (summary, consent line, confirmation token). The nested 'answers' object is handled via the enquiry_fields cross-reference, and the end-to-end lifecycle through email verification is described.

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 sequencing semantics the schema cannot express — that 'confirmation' is only supplied on the second call, and that answers must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields. It also spells out the exact consent wording that makes consent=true valid.

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 SEO for vets') and immediately bounds it with two explicit negatives ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs against a quote/purchase tool. It also cross-references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of answer keys.

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 an explicit two-step protocol with the condition that selects step 2 ('only if the person agrees'), plus the intermediate UI obligation to show the summary and consent line. Nothing about when to call or when not to call is left to inference.

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