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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It explains the validation step, the confirmation token, the two-call submission requirement, the consent requirement with exact wording, and the downstream email-link behavior. It also explicitly states what this is not (a purchase or guaranteed quote), preventing mistaken assumptions about side effects.

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 it earns every sentence by explaining a genuinely two-step workflow with non-obvious prerequisites and side effects. The key differentiator ('NOT a purchase') is front-loaded, the steps are clearly labeled, and the consent line is quoted verbatim to avoid ambiguity. No redundant filler is present.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what the tool returns in step 1 (summary, consent line, confirmation token), what must happen between calls, and what occurs after the second call. The only external dependency it references, enquiry_fields, is a sibling tool, so the agent can discover it naturally. Nothing critical 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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It specifies that answers are 'keyed by field key from enquiry_fields,' gives the exact consent sentence, and explains that the confirmation token comes from step 1 and is required only after the person approves. This materially clarifies how and when each parameter should be provided.

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 Workplace Recycling Rules, and clearly distinguishes itself by saying 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' It also references the two-step nature of the workflow, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 instructions: when to call the tool in step 1, when to call it again in step 2, and the condition that the person must agree first. It also references enquiry_fields for keying answers and warns that the enquiry is only visible after the person clicks the email link, providing strong guidance on how and when to use this tool.

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