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 validate-then-confirm flow, that step 1 returns a summary/consent line/token, that the tool is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, and exactly what consent entails including third-party data sharing and how to stop it. This is unusually rich disclosure 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 core purpose and the negative framing before the procedural detail, and every clause does work. It is long, and the verbatim consent text is repeated from the schema's consent description, which is mild redundancy rather than padding.

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 three-parameter, nested-object, no-annotations, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the two-step contract, which parameters apply at which step, the approval gate, and the post-submission email confirmation. Nothing material is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it explains that `answers` must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, that `consent` must be true in both steps, and that `confirmation` is the token from step 1 required only after approval. That sequencing context is not derivable from the schema alone.

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 Workplace Recycling Rules") and immediately disambiguates it from adjacent concepts ("NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote"), which distinguishes it from the checker_* and enquiry_* siblings. An agent can tell what this does without opening the 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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: step 1 with answers + consent=true, step 2 only after the person agrees, with the confirmation token and the same answers. It also names the gating condition ("only if the person agrees") and the downstream requirement (the person must click an emailed link before providers see it).

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