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 validation-only and returns a summary, consent line and confirmation token; that step 2 is the actual submission; that a double opt-in email link must be clicked before any provider sees the data; and it quotes the exact consent semantics including the 'up to three US providers' disclosure. This is unusually complete for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 operation type and the two negations before the procedural detail, and every sentence carries procedural weight. It is on the long side and the verbatim consent sentence duplicates what the schema already states for the consent parameter, which is the only real waste.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the full flow an agent needs: inputs per step, what step 1 returns, when to proceed, what the end user must do (click the email link), and what consent legally means. Nothing material for correct invocation 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema by explaining the temporal role of each parameter: answers keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, consent=true in both steps, and confirmation populated only in step 2 from the step-1 token. It stops short of describing the answer value types or validation failure behavior, so it is not a 5.

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?

Names a specific verb (submits) and resource (an enquiry to Answering Service Picker), and immediately bounds the scope with two explicit negations: 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote.' An agent can tell this apart from the compare_* siblings and from the enquiry_fields/enquiry_describe prerequisites without opening any 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 ordered procedure: Step 1 call with answers + consent=true, show the person the summary and consent line; Step 2 only if the person agrees, call again with the same answers plus the confirmation token. The gating condition for the second call is stated, and the dependency on enquiry_fields for the answer keys is implied clearly. Nothing is left to inference.

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