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 richly: it discloses that step 1 validates and returns a summary, consent line and token, that the returned summary/consent line must be shown to the person, that the enquiry is only submitted on step 2, and that an email link must be clicked before any provider sees the details. It also names the recipient universe (up to three Arizona installers) and the ongoing notification behavior.

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 most decision-critical fact ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote') and organized as Step 1 / Step 2, which is exactly the call sequence an agent needs. It loses a point because the full consent sentence is reproduced verbatim even though the identical text already lives in the consent parameter description in the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what each call returns (summary, consent line, confirmation token) and the out-of-band consequence (verification email before providers see the enquiry). With nested answer objects and a token-gated second call, this is as complete as an agent needs to execute the flow correctly.

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, but the description adds workflow meaning the schema cannot: 'answers' are keyed by field key from enquiry_fields, 'confirmation' is specifically the token from step 1 and is used only after the person approves the summary, and consent is the trigger for validation vs. submission. That functional role for each parameter is genuine added value.

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+resource (submits an enquiry to human providers) and immediately distinguishes it from adjacent concepts with 'NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'. This clearly separates it from siblings like calculate and enquiry_fields, which supply inputs rather than submit anything.

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+consent=true, then step 2 only if the person agrees, with the token added. It also states the gating condition for step 2 ('only if the person agrees') and the consent precondition, 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.