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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it discloses validation, returned summary/consent line/token, the two-call flow, the downstream email confirmation link, and that providers cannot see the enquiry until that link is clicked. It also clarifies that the tool submits an enquiry rather than completing a purchase or quote.

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 description is front-loaded with the purpose and the critical 'not a purchase' caveat, then organizes the rest into explicit Step 1 and Step 2 instructions. Despite its length, every sentence earns its place by explaining the staged consent and confirmation process.

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 three-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the missing context: what Step 1 returns, how Step 2 differs, the role of consent, and what the person receives afterward. An agent has enough information to invoke both stages correctly without additional documentation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some workflow meaning beyond the schema, especially tying answers to field keys from enquiry_fields and clarifying that confirmation only applies in Step 2 after human approval; most individual parameter descriptions themselves are largely repeated from the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Submits an enquiry'), explicitly scopes it as 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote,' and clarifies the two-step consent flow. It also ties answers to 'field key from enquiry_fields,' which helps distinguish it from the helper 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?

Usage is unusually explicit: Step 1 with answers and consent=true returns a summary/consent line/token; Step 2 is only after the person agrees and requires the same answers plus the token. It also states the consent meaning and the non-purchase boundary, leaving little ambiguity about when and how to call it.

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