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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly does: it discloses that step 1 only validates and returns a summary/consent line/token, that nothing is sent until step 2, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the enquiry. It doesn't cover retry/idempotency behavior or expiry of the confirmation token, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 disclaimer, then step 1, then step 2 — a sensible order for a sequential tool. It is somewhat long, and the consent statement is quoted verbatim even though the schema already carries it, which is mild 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?

For a multi-step tool with no output schema, the description explains what step 1 returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and what step 2 triggers (submission plus an email link gate). An agent has enough to drive both calls and to know what to surface to the person.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: answers are keyed by the field key from enquiry_fields, consent must be true only with genuine agreement, and confirmation is only supplied on the second call. That clarifies when each parameter is and isn't used, beyond the schema's per-field text.

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 409A Cost') and immediately scopes it with what it is NOT ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), which separates it from a purchase/quote flow an agent might otherwise assume.

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 protocol: step 1 with answers and consent=true, then step 2 only 'if the person agrees' with the confirmation token. The gating condition for each call is spelled out rather than inferred.

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