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: it discloses that step 1 is a dry-run validation that returns a token, that step 2 actually submits, that an email confirmation link is required before any provider sees the data, and that details go to up to three agencies with notification of each firm. It also spells out the exact scope of consent rather than just saying 'consent=true'.

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 procedure is front-loaded and ordered by step, with the non-purchase framing up front, so an agent can act on the first sentence alone. The main cost is the long verbatim consent paragraph, which largely duplicates the consent parameter's schema description; it is useful for fidelity but is the one section that could be trimmed.

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 describe returns itself — and it does, naming the summary, the consent line and the confirmation token from step 1 and the submission plus email-link flow from step 2. For a nested-object, two-phase write tool with no annotations, nothing an agent needs in order 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining that 'answers' must be keyed by field key from enquiry_fields and that 'confirmation' comes from step 1 after the person approves the summary. It also ties 'consent' to an explicit, externally-defined agreement rather than leaving it as a bare boolean.

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 to AI vs Hire) and immediately bounds it with negations ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'), so an agent cannot confuse it with a transactional or quoting tool. It also implicitly positions itself against siblings enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe by naming 'field key from enquiry_fields' as its input source.

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 gives an explicit two-step procedure: step 1 with answers+consent to get a summary/consent line/token, step 2 only if the person agrees, re-sending answers, consent and the token. The gating condition ('only if the person agrees') and the downstream requirement (the person must click an emailed link before providers see it) are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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