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 the two-phase token flow, that a summary/consent line/token is returned, that submission triggers an email with a click-through link required before any provider sees the data, and the exact scope of what consent authorises (up to three suppliers, direct contact, per-firm notification, ability to stop).

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 purpose and the not-a-purchase caveat, then the two steps in order. The embedded consent quotation is long and dense, but it is the exact legal text the agent must convey, so it earns its place rather than being 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what submission produces downstream. For a two-step, nested-object, mutation-style tool with no annotations, this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 3 baseline is met automatically; the description goes further by explaining that answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that confirmation is only supplied on the second call after approval. It doesn't expand on the answers value types, but the schema handles that.

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 CSV Convert") and immediately draws the boundary that matters most: "NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote." It also names enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so the agent can see how it relates to a sibling without opening 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?

Prescribes the exact call sequence: step 1 with answers+consent=true, then step 2 only "if the person agrees" with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gate condition and the between-step obligation (show the person the summary and consent line) are both explicit.

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