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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that step 2 actually submits, that an email link must be clicked before providers see it, and exactly what consent authorizes (up to three brokers, emailed firm names, opt-out). This is unusually rich disclosure of side effects and downstream data flow.

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 critical 'not a purchase' disambiguation and structured as Step 1 / Step 2. The verbatim consent quote is long but legally necessary and matches the schema, so it earns its place; the only mild cost is overall length.

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, nested-object tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle: validation, returned artifacts, token round-trip, final submission, and the email-confirmation gate. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly in either phase 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: 'answers' must be keyed by field key from the enquiry_fields sibling, consent must be true, and 'confirmation' is the token returned from step 1 and only used after approval. It also embeds the consent semantics that the schema only restates.

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 (submits) and resource (enquiry) and immediately disambiguates from siblings by ruling out purchase and guaranteed quote, which separates it from calculate/calculator_describe. An agent can identify this as the human-facing submission tool 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?

Explicitly prescribes the two-step protocol: Step 1 with answers + consent=true, then Step 2 only if the person agrees, with the confirmation token. Conditions that gate each call and the alternative path (don't call again) are spelled out rather than implied.

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