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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the two-step nature, the requirement for user consent, the email link click requirement, and the exact consent text. It also warns it is not a purchase or guaranteed quote, preventing misuse. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 long but well-structured with a clear opening purpose and numbered steps. Every sentence carries necessary information (steps, consent, token, email, consent text). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and caveats, making it efficient for the complexity involved.

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?

Given the tool's two-step nature and the need for explicit user interaction, the description covers all necessary aspects: validation, summary display, consent line, token usage, submission condition, and email notification. There is no output schema, but the description adequately explains the returned items (summary, token). It is complete for correct invocation.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond the schema: it explains answers are keyed by field keys from enquiry_fields, clarifies the consent meaning, and specifies the confirmation token's role across steps. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 explicitly states the action ('Submits an enquiry to Background Check Quotes'), the resource, and the key caveats ('NOT a purchase, NOT a guaranteed quote'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like enquiry_fields and enquiry_describe by describing the submission flow, so an agent can immediately identify its purpose.

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?

The description provides explicit step-by-step usage: Step 1 with answers and consent, returning a summary and token, and Step 2 only after user agreement with the token. It also instructs to show the summary and consent line, which is critical for correct interaction. This leaves no ambiguity about when and how to call the tool.

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