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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is sent to providers until the person clicks an emailed link, that details go to up to three providers chosen by Leave Tracker, and that the person can halt further distribution. It also spells out the exact consent text, which is essential for knowing what consent=true actually attests to.

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 critical constraints ('NOT a purchase') are front-loaded and the two steps are sequenced clearly. The consent text is fully duplicated in the consent parameter's schema description, which is mild redundancy, and the final sentence is long, but each sentence still carries load-bearing information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by describing what each call returns (a validated summary, the consent line, a confirmation token) and what happens after successful submission (email link the person must click before any provider sees the enquiry). For a two-phase, consent-sensitive workflow this is complete.

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 would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: answers are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only after the quoted agreement, and confirmation is a token returned by step 1 and required only on the second call. That is operational guidance the schema alone does not supply.

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 names a specific verb and resource (submits an enquiry to Leave Tracker) and immediately scopes it with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote', which prevents the most likely misclassification. It also names the sibling enquiry_fields as the source of the answer keys, so an agent can tell it apart from the calculator 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?

It lays out an explicit two-call protocol: 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 (person approval of the summary) and the exclusion (not a purchase) are both stated outright.

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