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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the two-step nature, validation behavior, return of summary/consent line/confirmation token, the email-with-link delivery, and the critical fact that providers only see the enquiry after the person clicks the link. It also spells out the exact consent wording and the consequence of consent.

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 longer than average but earns its length: it packs the two-step protocol, consent text, token flow, email/link behavior, and exclusions into one coherent paragraph. The Step 1/Step 2 structure makes the information scannable, and no sentence is redundant with the schema's static field descriptions.

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 and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent exactly what to do in step 1, what to show the person, what to do in step 2, and what happens after submission. The only minor omission is error-handling behavior, but that is not essential for correct invocation in the described flow.

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?

The schema already describes all parameters clearly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning by explaining that answers must use field keys from enquiry_fields, that consent must be true only when the person agrees to the specific consent line, and that confirmation is the token from step 1. This goes beyond the schema by clarifying the lifecycle and relationship between the parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Submits an enquiry to Tax Investigation Cost' and immediately clarifies what it is not ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly distinguishes this submission action from sibling tools like enquiry_fields by framing the call as the two-step submission flow rather than field retrieval or description.

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 gives explicit step-by-step usage: step 1 to validate and get a confirmation token, then step 2 only after the person agrees. It also specifies the prerequisite that answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields' and the condition for consent. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use this tool beyond the 'not a purchase' framing.

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