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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses the side-effect (details sent to up to three carriers), the double-consent/token flow, the email verification link required before any provider sees the enquiry, and the exact consent wording. This is the kind of context an agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant fact ('NOT a purchase') and every sentence about the two-step flow earns its place. The main cost is length in a single dense paragraph and the verbatim consent wording that is also duplicated in the schema's consent parameter description.

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-phase tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the calling convention, the return of step 1 (summary, consent line, token), the step-2 trigger, and the post-submission email-verification consequence. An agent has everything needed to drive the flow correctly and avoid submitting prematurely.

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% and the schema already documents all three parameters including the consent text and the token's origin. The description reinforces the step-conditional role of 'confirmation' (only present on step 2) and ties 'answers' to field keys from enquiry_fields, adding mild value beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 given full coverage, lifted slightly by the flow context.

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+resource ('Submits an enquiry to Waste Carrier Check') and immediately disambiguates with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. It also references the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of field keys, so an agent can place it in the family without opening other schemas.

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?

Provides an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers+consent=true to validate and get a token, step 2 only after the person agrees, with the token. The gate condition ('only if the person agrees') and the required user-visible actions (show summary and consent line) are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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