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 must be shown to the person, that submission triggers an email with a link that must be clicked before any provider sees the data, that details go to up to three solicitors, and that the person can stop further firms. These are material side effects and a double opt-in gate that no structured field conveys.

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 two disqualifiers and the step ordering, so the critical information is first. It is somewhat long and the consent string is reproduced verbatim in both the description and the schema's 'consent' field, which is the only real redundancy.

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, so the description must explain returns and it does: a summary, the consent line, and a confirmation token in step 1, and an emailed verification link in step 2. For a stateful two-call mutation with nested answer objects, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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; the description adds genuine flow semantics beyond the schema by tying 'answers' to the sibling enquiry_fields keys and clarifying that 'confirmation' only exists in step 2 after approval. It stops short of describing accepted answer types or validation failure behavior.

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 Settlement Calculator') and immediately rules out two plausible misreadings ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It also names the sibling tool that supplies the input shape ('keyed by field key from enquiry_fields'), so an agent can distinguish it from calculate/enquiry_describe without opening a 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 invocation protocol with a hard gate between them: step 1 with answers+consent, then 'only if the person agrees' step 2 with the same answers plus the returned token. The agent knows exactly which call to make at which moment and when not to proceed.

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